R. v. MacIntosh

R. v. MacIntosh

The court concluded there is a real legal conflict between the court's statutory duty to determine and impose sentence under s.720(1) and the effect of a post‑conviction referral under the program authorization read with para. 717(4)(a) (which may require dismissal on compliance); because this raises a substantial question about the validity of the provincial program authorization insofar as it allows post‑conviction/pre‑sentence judicial referrals, the court adjourned the sentencing to obtain submissions and input from the provincial minister and ordered briefs.

Citation
2018 NSPC 23
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Emily Anne MacIntosh
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing (adjourned/pre Sentence Referral Issue)
Outcome
Adjourned to permit submissions on the validity of the restorative‑justice program authorization and to allow parties to address a newly filed community‑impact statement; briefs ordered.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Restorative Justice Program Authorization, Division of Powers, Delegation of Legislative Authority, Alternative Measures
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Sentencing Restorative Justice Program Authorization Division of Powers Delegation of Legislative Authority Alternative Measures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Emily Anne MacIntosh

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing (adjourned/pre Sentence Referral Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a provincial restorative‑justice program authorization may lawfully permit courts to make post‑conviction/pre‑sentence referrals
  2. 2 Whether the program authorization conflicts with the court's mandatory sentencing jurisdiction under s.720(1) of the Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether para. 717(4)(a) of the Criminal Code (dismissal on compliance with alternative measures) conflicts with statutory sentencing requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded there is a real legal conflict between the court's statutory duty to determine and impose sentence under s.720(1) and the effect of a post‑conviction referral under the program authorization read with para. 717(4)(a) (which may require dismissal on compliance); because this raises a substantial question about the validity of the provincial program authorization insofar as it allows post‑conviction/pre‑sentence judicial referrals, the court adjourned the sentencing to obtain submissions and input from the provincial minister and ordered briefs.

Court Disposition

Adjourned to permit submissions on the validity of the restorative‑justice program authorization and to allow parties to address a newly filed community‑impact statement; briefs ordered.

Orders

  • Matter adjourned to 4 September 2018 at 1:30 p.m.
  • Briefs due 24 August 2018