Canada Judgment

British Columbia Court of Appeal

R. v. Schell

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Because R. v. Summers entitles eligible appellants to presumptive 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, the Crown did not oppose and the appellant was not disqualified under s.719(3.1), the Court granted extension and leave and increased the remand credit to 32 months, reducing the sentence on Count 2 accordingly.

Court disposition

Appeal allowed in part; extension of time and leave to appeal granted; pre-sentence custody credit increased to 32 months and sentence on Count 2 reduced to three years and four months.

Orders

  • Extension of time for filing the appeal granted
  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Pre-sentence custody credit increased to 32 months (2 years 8 months)
  • Sentence on Count 2 of Indictment 93349-3 reduced to three years and four months

02

Material facts

Parties

Brandon Clifford Schell

Appellant Counsel: D. Melville

Regina

Respondent Counsel: E. Campbell

Amounts and remedies

  • Original Global Sentence (months): 50.5
  • Pre Sentence Custody Measured (months): 21.33
  • Pre Sentence Custody Credit Awarded After Summers (months): 32
  • New Sentence on Count 2 (months): 40
  • Increase in Credit (months): 10.5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Appeal From Sentence to Court of Appeal (extension of Time and Leave to Appeal)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant sought extension of time and leave to appeal his sentence to obtain pre-sentence custody credit at a ratio of 1.5:1 in accordance with R. v. Summers, arguing he served 21 months and 10 days in custody and was entitled to 32 months credit which would reduce his sentence on Count 2.
Respondent
Crown did not oppose granting credit at 1.5:1 and advised the appellant was not disqualified from receiving such credit under s.719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26

    Pre-sentence custody credit is presumptively 1.5 days credit for each day in custody where justified by circumstances

  2. 02

    Criminal Code s.719(3.1)

    Section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code can disqualify an offender from receiving remand credit in specified circumstances

  3. 03

    Court of Appeal practice and procedural principles

    Courts may grant extensions of time and leave to appeal where applications are timely on discovery of new law and where appeal has merit

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Because R. v. Summers entitles eligible appellants to presumptive 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, the Crown did not oppose and the appellant was not disqualified under s.719(3.1), the Court granted extension and leave and increased the remand credit to 32 months, reducing the sentence on Count 2 accordingly.

Obiter and limits

  • The appellant acted promptly to pursue his appeal upon learning of Summers
  • Mathematical computation: 21.33 months (21 months 10 days) × 1.5 = 32 months
  • The increase in credit of 10.5 months led to a reduction of the Count 2 sentence to three years and four months

Court disposition

Appeal allowed in part; extension of time and leave to appeal granted; pre-sentence custody credit increased to 32 months and sentence on Count 2 reduced to three years and four months.

  • Extension of time for filing the appeal granted
  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Pre-sentence custody credit increased to 32 months (2 years 8 months)
  • Sentence on Count 2 of Indictment 93349-3 reduced to three years and four months

Source and reliance status

British Columbia Court of Appeal · 20 February 2015

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Judgment· 20 February 2015

2015 BCCA 74

2015 BCCA 74 R. v. Powers

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Schell, 2015 BCCA 74 Date: 20150220 Docket: CA042264 Between: Regina Respondent And Brandon Clifford Schell Appellant Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Donald The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith The Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman On appeal from: An order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated August 16, 2013 (R. v. Schell, 2013 BCSC 1678, Kamloops Docket No. 93349-3). Counsel for the Appellant: D. Melville Counsel for the Respondent: E. Campbell Written Joint Submission Filed: January 30, 2015 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia February 20, 2015 Written Reasons by: The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith Concurred in by: The Honourable Mr. Justice Donald The Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman Summary: The appellant appeals the credit granted for pre-sentence custody. Held: Appeal allowed. Adjustment to credit granted in accordance with R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith: [1] The appellant, Brandon Clifford Schell, applies for an extension of time to appeal, leave to appeal, and if granted appeals his sentence to reflect credit for pre-sentence custody at a ratio of 1.5 days to each day spent in pre-sentence custody, in accordance with R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. [2] Mr. Schell was sentenced on August 16, 2013, to a global sentence of 50 ½

months (or 4 years and 2 ½ months) as follows: Indictment 93349-3 Count 2 - unlawfully discharging a firearm, contrary to s. 244(2)(a) of the Criminal Code - 50 ½ months (or 4 years, 2 ½ months) after receiving credit for pre-sentence custody of 21 ½ months (or 1 year, 9 ½ months); Count 3 - aggravated assault, contrary to s. 268(2) of the Criminal Code - 3 years concurrent to Count 2 [3] Mr. Schell was in pre-sentence custody for 21 months and 10 days. He received credit for that period at a ratio of 1:1. Based on Summers, he was entitled to credit for pre-sentence custody at a ratio of 1:1.5 or 32 months (21.33 x 1.5 = 32). The increase in credit to Mr. Schell would be 10 ½ months resulting in a reduction in Mr. Schell's sentence on Count 2 to three years and four months. [4] The record indicates that Mr. Schell acted in a timely manner to pursue his appeal upon learning of the Summers decision. [5] The Crown advises that it does not oppose the granting of credit for pre-sentence custody at a ratio of 1:1.5 and that Mr. Schell is not disqualified from receiving such credit pursuant to s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code. [6] In these circumstances, I would grant an extension of time for the filing of the appeal, grant leave to appeal, and allow the appeal to the extent only that the sentence on Count 2 of Indictment 93349-3 be reduced to three years and four months, after giving Mr. Schell credit of two years and eight months (or 32 months) for pre-sentence custody. "The Honourable Madam Justice D. Smith" I AGREE: "The Honourable Mr. Justice Donald" I AGREE: "The Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman"

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26

Case cited

R. v. Schell, 2013 BCSC 1678

Case cited

Criminal Code, s.244(2)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Code, s.268(2)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Code, s.719(3.1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.