R. v. Saberi

R. v. Saberi

The sentencing judge did not err in principle in imposing the statutory minimum fine of $500 per day for 181 days (total $90,500) given the low degree of moral culpability, absence of economic gain, cooperation with the municipality and deterrence considerations; the judge also properly exercised discretion in refusing to remit the fine under the Remission of Penalties Act because the minimum was not grossly disproportionate or manifestly unfair and no justificatory legal norm warranted disturbing the statutory minimum; therefore the appeal and Crown cross‑appeal are dismissed.

Citation
2017 NSSC 34
Parties
Appellant/respondent by Cross Appeal: Navid Saberi; Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (sentencing) / Appeal From Provincial Court Sentencing Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Crown cross‑appeal dismissed; Provincial Court sentence of a $90,500 fine (minimum $500 per day for 181 days) upheld; remission under the Remission of Penalties Act denied.
Legal Topics
Building Code, Occupancy Permit, Fines, Remission of Penalties, Sentencing Principles, Deterrence, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Regulatory Law Administrative Law Sentencing Building Code Occupancy Permit Fines Remission of Penalties +3 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Navid Saberi

Appellant/respondent by Cross Appeal

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent/appellant by Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (sentencing) / Appeal From Provincial Court Sentencing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Provincial Court erred in imposing the statutory minimum fine for 181 days of unauthorized occupancy
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to remit the fine under the Remission of Penalties Act
  3. 3 Appropriate standard of review for sentence and for remission decision

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in principle in imposing the statutory minimum fine of $500 per day for 181 days (total $90,500) given the low degree of moral culpability, absence of economic gain, cooperation with the municipality and deterrence considerations; the judge also properly exercised discretion in refusing to remit the fine under the Remission of Penalties Act because the minimum was not grossly disproportionate or manifestly unfair and no justificatory legal norm warranted disturbing the statutory minimum; therefore the appeal and Crown cross‑appeal are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Crown cross‑appeal dismissed; Provincial Court sentence of a $90,500 fine (minimum $500 per day for 181 days) upheld; remission under the Remission of Penalties Act denied.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross‑appeal dismissed