Mr. Morris, a young Black man from Toronto, was convicted of possessing a loaded firearm. At sentencing, his lawyer filed a cultural assessment and expert evidence on anti-Black racism, poverty, and over-policing in his community.
The trial judge took these factors into account and imposed a 12-month sentence. The Crown appealed, arguing the sentence was too low.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the approach but adjusted the sentence to 15 months. More importantly, the Court set out three holdings that have shaped sentencing across the country.
First, judges may take judicial notice of anti-Black racism in Canada without requiring proof in every case. Second, an offender does not have to prove a direct causal link between systemic racism and the offence. Third, evidence of systemic racism goes to the offender’s moral culpability, not to the seriousness of the offence itself.
Morris is the leading Ontario authority on how sentencing courts must address anti-Black racism. It is cited in every Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA) report and in BLAC’s own work, including the factum in Burke-Whittaker.
Defence lawyers, duty counsel, and self-represented accused can use Morris to ask the court to consider lived experience, family history, and community context. It gives judges a clear framework for using systemic racism evidence in a way that respects both the seriousness of the offence and the humanity of the person being sentenced.
Why this decision matters for Black communitiesMorris is the appellate decision that put anti-Black racism on the sentencing record in Ontario. By accepting that systemic racism in policing, education, child welfare and the labour market can be a mitigating factor at sentencing, the Court of Appeal opened the door for Impact of Race and Culture Assessments (IRCAs) to be received in the same evidentiary register as Gladue reports.
What the Court got rightThe Court accepted that lived experience of anti-Black racism is a relevant, individualized mitigating factor, not a generalized social science point. It also recognized that incarceration falls disproportionately on Black accused and that sentencing judges must respond to that reality.
Gaps and cautionsThe Court declined to formalize a Gladue-style framework for Black accused. Trial courts still have wide discretion to decide how much weight to give an IRCA. Counsel should not assume the existence of an IRCA alone reduces a sentence; the report must be actively tied to the moral blameworthiness analysis and to specific sentencing principles under section 718 of the Criminal Code.
Practical takeawayUse Morris as the citation that gets an IRCA admitted. Use the IRCA itself to do the heavy lifting on moral blameworthiness, rehabilitation prospects and the harms of incarceration. Where the Crown resists the analysis, plead Morris together with section 718.2(e).
Case comments reflect the views of Black Legal Action Centre and do not constitute legal advice. For advice on a specific matter, contact BLAC or a qualified legal service provider.
Black Justice Hub provides legal information, not legal advice. For advice about your specific situation, contact the Black Legal Action Centre or a lawyer. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may qualify for help from Legal Aid Ontario.
Mr. Burke-Whittaker, a young Black man, pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded prohibited firearm. The sentencing judge gave him a two-year-less-a-day conditional sentence served in the community, plus three years of probation. The Crown appealed, asking the appeal court to send him to prison instead.
The case reached the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of what should happen when a Crown sentence appeal succeeds: is reincarceration automatic, or does the court have discretion?
The Black Legal Action Centre intervened. BLAC argued that reincarcerating a person who has complied with their community sentence is never automatic. Courts must apply proportionality, restraint, and the sentencing principles in section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, including the overrepresentation of Black people in custody and the impact of anti-Black racism.
BLAC counsel: Jean-Simon Schoenholz, Nadine Tawdy, Shanika Gordon, Demar Hewitt
Mr. Dorsey is a federal inmate. He applied to Correctional Service Canada to be transferred from a medium-security to a minimum-security institution. CSC refused. He brought a habeas corpus application in provincial superior court, asking a judge to review whether his continued confinement at the higher security level was lawful.
The lower courts said habeas corpus was not available because Mr. Dorsey had no pre-existing right to be at minimum security. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed.
By a 6–3 majority, Justice Moreau held that habeas corpus is available to challenge a CSC refusal to reclassify an inmate’s security level. The remedy does not require the prisoner to first prove an entitlement to a lower classification. What matters is whether the deprivation of residual liberty inside the prison is lawful.
Ms. Kanyinda is a refugee claimant from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She applied for Quebec’s reduced-contribution daycare program so she could look for work and support her three children. The province refused, relying on section 3 of the Reduced Contribution Regulation, which excluded refugee claimants who did not yet hold a work permit.
Ms. Kanyinda challenged the rule under section 15 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with her. On March 6, 2026, the Court found the regulation discriminated against refugee-claimant women on the combined grounds of sex and immigration status.
The Court applied an intersectional analysis: the rule did not affect all refugee claimants equally. It hit women hardest because women carry most of the unpaid childcare. The remedy expanded eligibility to include refugee claimants.
Ms. Kanyinda is a refugee claimant from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She applied for Quebec’s reduced-contribution daycare program so she could look for work and support her three children. The province refused, relying on section 3 of the Reduced Contribution Regulation, which excluded refugee claimants who did not yet hold a work permit.
Ms. Kanyinda challenged the rule under section 15 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with her. On March 6, 2026, the Court found the regulation discriminated against refugee-claimant women on the combined grounds of sex and immigration status.
The Court applied an intersectional analysis: the rule did not affect all refugee claimants equally. It hit women hardest because women carry most of the unpaid childcare. The remedy expanded eligibility to include refugee claimants.
Mr. Bent is a permanent resident of Canada and a Jamaican citizen. After a criminal matter, the Canada Border Services Agency referred him to an inadmissibility hearing under section 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Immigration Division found him inadmissible.
Mr. Bent and the Black Legal Action Centre filed a joint application for judicial review. They argued that sections 36(1) and 44(2) of IRPA violate section 15 of the Charter because they fail to require decision-makers to consider the role of systemic anti-Black racism that often shapes a person’s contact with the criminal system before it shapes their immigration status.
The federal government brought a motion to strike BLAC as an applicant, arguing BLAC was not “directly affected” and could not name itself as a public interest applicant without first asking the Court’s permission.
On December 20, 2024, Justice Aylen of the Federal Court dismissed the government’s motion. She held that BLAC was entitled to assert public interest standing by naming itself in the notice of application. The question of whether BLAC ultimately has standing will be decided by the judge hearing the merits.
BLAC counsel: Prasanna Balasundaram, Nicole Guthrie. Mr. Bent represented by Andrew Brouwer (Refugee Law Office, Legal Aid Ontario).
A fill-in-the-blank legal template for bringing a Charter motion challenging unconstitutional prison conditions, including segregation, denial of care, and racial discrimination in custody. The document also includes a sample Canadian Human Rights Tribunal application and a directory of prison advocacy organizations across Canada.
A guide for defence counsel on addressing anti-Black racism at sentencing. It explains why Canada has no Gladue-equivalent for Black accused persons, how to use Impact of Race and Culture Assessments (IRCAs), and includes a factum template and sample sentencing submissions.
A structured framework for preparing Cultural Impact Assessments (CIAs) in criminal sentencing proceedings. It guides lawyers, social workers, and cultural consultants through documenting how systemic racism has shaped a Black accused person’s life, for use in court to support fair and proportionate sentences.
A legal resource for counsel representing Black people who are incarcerated. It covers anti-Black racism in Canadian prisons, the failures of the prison grievance system, and concrete strategies including Charter challenges, human rights complaints, and post-sentencing advocacy.
A practical guide for defence lawyers on how to raise anti-Black racism at bail hearings in Canada. It covers the legal framework, Charter arguments, evidentiary tools, and ready-to-use submissions for challenging discriminatory pretrial detention.
