R. v. Minoose
The Court found two legal errors by the sentencing judge (misinterpretation of the Truth in Sentencing Act and an incorrect Gladue nexus requirement), accepted that but for those errors the judge would have given 2:1 credit throughout, and therefore increased the appellant's pre-trial custody credit by 17 months to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2012 ONCA 628
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Kevin Minoose
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 September 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal sentence granted; appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Pre Trial Custody Credit, Truth in Sentencing Act, Gladue Principles, Sentence Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Kevin Minoose
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Truth in Sentencing Act precludes a sentencing judge from awarding 2:1 credit for pre-trial custody after the passage of the Act
- 2 Whether Gladue analysis requires the appellant to show a causal connection between his aboriginal background and the commission of the offence
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found two legal errors by the sentencing judge (misinterpretation of the Truth in Sentencing Act and an incorrect Gladue nexus requirement), accepted that but for those errors the judge would have given 2:1 credit throughout, and therefore increased the appellant's pre-trial custody credit by 17 months to give effect to the judge's intended fit sentence.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal sentence granted; appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Leave to appeal sentence is granted
- Increase the credit for pre-trial custody by 17 months to give effect to the sentencing judge's intended credit
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Minoose Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2012-09-20 Neutral citation 2012 ONCA 628 Docket numbers C55280 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Juriansz, Russell G.; Tulloch, Michael H. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Minoose, 2012 ONCA 628 DATE: 20120920 DOCKET: C55280 Laskin, Juriansz and Tulloch JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Kevin Minoose Appellant Howard L. Krongold, for the appellant Matthew Asma, for the respondent Heard: September 19, 2012 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice P. Kane of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 28, 2011. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The Crown fairly acknowledges that the sentencing judge made two errors in principle: first he wrongly held that the Truth in Sentencing Act precluded him from giving 2:1 credit after the passage of the Act; and second in his Gladue analysis, he wrongly required the appellant to show a causal connection between his aboriginal background and the commission of the offence. [2] That said, the trial judge gave thoughtful reasons for the sentence he imposed. And, in our view, the sentence he intended to impose would be a fit sentence. We agree with Mr. Krongold that, but for his error on the effect of the statute, the trial judge would have given 2:1 credit throughout. Therefore, giving effect to the trial judge’s intent, we increase the credit given to the appellant for pre-trial custody by a further 17 months. Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted and the appeal is allowed to the extent reflected in this endorsement.