R v Qiyuk

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, nuca, 2025nuca11, 2025 nuca 11 (canlii), 2025, nuca, 11, (canlii), 18-25-13 cap, 2025, indigenous peoples, inuit sustenance hunters, constitution act, 1982, s. 35, mandatory driving prohibition under s. 320.24(1) of the criminal code, infringement of indigenous rights to hunt for sustenance, does the prohibition unconstitutionally interfere with inuit cultural and subsistence practices?, interpretation of s. 35 rights in the context of mandatory driving prohibitions, rights and freedoms, cruel and unusual punishment, canadian charter of rights and freedoms, s. 12, mandatory driving prohibition under s. 320.24(1) of the criminal code, whether the prohibition constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for inuit sustenance hunters, practical impossibility of continuing hunting activities as passengers, test for s. 12 violations, rights and freedoms, liberty, canadian charter of rights and freedoms, s. 7, mandatory driving prohibition under s. 320.24(1) of the criminal code, whether the prohibition infringes liberty rights of inuit sustenance hunters, application of legal principles to liberty in the context of subsistence hunting, rights and freedoms, equality rights, canadian charter of rights and freedoms, s. 15, mandatory driving prohibition under s. 320.24(1) of the criminal code, discrimination against inuit sustenance hunters based on ethnic origin, whether the prohibition disproportionately impacts inuit hunters, test for s. 15 infringement, criminal procedure, appeals, leave to appeal under s. 839(1.1) of the criminal code, summary conviction appeal judge's decision, whether the proposed grounds of appeal involve questions of law alone, reasonably arguable case of substance, importance of the matter to inuit hunters and the administration of justice in nunavut, criminal procedure, stay of mandatory driving prohibition, criminal code, s. 320.25, first alcohol, related driving offence, crown's lack of opposition to stay, whether a stay pending appeal is appropriate, balancing the administration of justice and the applicants' subsistence needs