Supreme Court of Canada

Supreme Court rejects St. Laurent rapist’s appeal

Local Journalism Initiative / The Suburban / August 6, 2025 / Erich Shimon Chemama, Joel Goldenberg, Quebec Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Joel Goldenberg
The Suburban

The Supreme Court of Canada last week dismissed an appeal by former St. Laurent resident Erich Shimon Chemama, who has tried to have his convictions for rape and other offences dismissed for many years.

The Quebec Court of Appeals ruled against Chemama in April 2024, in a judgment by Justices Martin Vauclair, Robert Mainville and Marie-Josée Hogue. A psychiatric evaluation said he has a “personality disorder with significant narcissistic and antisocial psychopathic components,” and he was declared a dangerous offender, very likely to reoffend.

Chemama had been found guilty for crimes that occurred in his St. Laurent home against sex workers, including two counts of sexual assault, two counts of forcible confinement and two counts of uttering death threats. In terms of the third of three incidents, he was acquitted of one count each of sexual assault, forcible confinement and uttering death threats.

Chemama will now have to serve his sentence for an indeterminate amount of time.

Chemama, 28 years old at the time of the first, Oct. 7, 2009 incident, asked an agency for an escort. The victim was referred in court documents as O.M., 18 at the time.”Mr. Chemama grabbed [the victim] and pushed her on the bed,” the judgment states. “O.M. screamed, but Chemama turned up the volume of the TV set to cover her voice. Making a gesture as if to look for a concealed object, he threatened to kill her, saying, ‘I’ll make it like a Soprano (a reference to the HBO show about the Mafia), no one will find your body.’”

The victim, who knew her life was being threatened, “gave in to Mr. Chemama’s commands” and unprotected sex of various types took place. The escort was then told by Chemama not to go to the police, saying he was a lawyer. “To secure O.M.’s silence, he pulled her driver’s licence from her purse and photocopied it. He also dialed her phone number to make sure that the number obtained from her was correct.” The sexual assault left the victim with injuries in the areas where she was violated.

The next incident, on Nov. 25, 2010, involved another escort, also 18 and referred to in the court documents as A.O., who was offering her services for the first time. As with the first incident, A.O. declined to engage in sex without a condom and rejected a demand to engage in oral sex. “Mr. Chemama replied that she would have to do whatever he wanted. He then aggressively tried to perform oral sex on her, which she protested against. Mr. Chemama then became upset.” The incident then became physical and threatening.

Chemama “grabbed her by the neck and a rough fight followed. When A.O. screamed and bit his gloves, Mr. Chemama shouted, ‘If you don’t shut up, I’m gonna f—–g kill you. I’m gonna take your body, cut it up and put it in a bag. I did that to many girls before, you don’t know me – I’m a sick guy.’” He also said, ‘If you don’t shut up, I’m gonna tape your mouth and no one is going to hear you.’ When A.O. screamed and asked to be let go, Mr. Chemama tried to cover her mouth. Then a light came on and an older lady, whom Mr. Chemama identified as his mother, came into the room, exchanged a few words with him in a foreign language, then she left.”

A.O. then called “police, police, police!” and was rescued by her driver and the building’s janitor. Chemama was then arrested.

The Appeals Court document also pointed out that while he was incarcerated, Chemama “has been the object of numerous complaints and numerous incidents — 300 over five years according to the carceral authorities — involving both verbal and non-verbal violence, threats, refusal to cooperate and the like.”

“As an example of Mr. Chemama’s [activities] in detention, he once poured bleach in a coffee machine that was used by the prisoners. A petition by Mr. Chemama’s fellow inmates followed to ‘get rid’ of him [was] a first in the services director’s experience of 26 years in carceral institutions.” n

Supreme Court rejects St. Laurent rapist’s appeal Read More »

Supreme Court will hear EMSB Bill 21 challenge including on Notwithstanding

Local Journalism Initiative / The Suburban / August 4, 2025 / Bill 21, Joel Goldenberg, Raymond Théberge, Supreme Court of Canada

By Joel Goldenberg
The Suburban

The Supreme Court of Canada decided last Thursday that it will hear the challenge against Bill 21 brought by the English Montreal School Board, Mubeenah Mughal and Pietro Mercuri against the Quebec government, including its pre-emptive use of the Notwithstanding clause.

Bill 21 prohibits the display of religious symbols in the legislature, courts, by police, by teachers in public schools and certain bureaucrats.

As reported by The Suburban, last March, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that Bill 21 is constitutional and dismissed requests for a judicial review and a declaratory judgment.

That three judge panel — composed of Manon Savard, Yves-Marie Morrissette and Marie-France Bich — agreed with a Superior Court judgment that Bill 21 is “valid with respect to division of powers and does not offend Canada’s constitutional architecture or the unwritten principles of the Constitution, nor does it offend any pre‑Confederation statute or principle having constitutional status.” The judgment also says that the use of the Notwithstanding clause was valid and in this case overrides the Quebec and Canadian Charters.

Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada Raymond Théberge stated that he was pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, and added that as Bill 21 “has undeniable effects on minority schools in Quebec, I will therefore be filing an application to intervene in this matter before the Supreme Court of Canada to address the interpretation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including with regard to the English speaking minority’s right to management and control over their facilities and instruction.”

Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette and Secularism Minister Jean-François Roberge posted that “secularism is a fundamental value for living together and a vector of social progress. It constitutes an individual right and protects the freedom and equality of all. It is through secularism that all Quebecers, of all affiliations, can come together and form a strong, modern and united nation.”

They added that an intervention by the federal government “would not only be disrespectful, but could not be considered anything other than an attack on the autonomy of the [provinces].”

English Montreal School Board chair Joe Ortona said the board, which based its case primarily on Section 23, maintains “our original position that Bill 21 conflicts with our values and our mission and with those of all Quebecers as expressed in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Its very adoption was contrary to our societal goal of promoting our peaceful co-existence in a pluralistic Quebec.

“[Bill 21 also] sends a message of intolerance and exclusion to our students and their families. We are pleased to go forward in front of the highest court in the country.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been granted leave to intervene in the case. “We look forward to arguing our case that Bill 21 is an unconstitutional law that harms people who are already marginalized and has no place in Canadian society,” the organization posted. n

Supreme Court will hear EMSB Bill 21 challenge including on Notwithstanding Read More »