Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal upheld an 18-year global sentence for serious firearm offences after finding no error in the sentencer’s weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Sentencing reasons for six sexual assault convictions arising from offences against five complainants. The court imposed a net effective sentence of 8 years, 4 months and declined restitution.
Given the high gravity of intimidating a justice system participant, statutory primacy of denunciation and deterrence, the offender's extensive and continuous criminal history, limited mitigation and lack of remorse or rehabilitative evidence, a two-year custodial sentence is proportionate; the sentence must run consecutively to other non-life sentences per s.718.3(4) and case law, be concurrent with the existing life sentence, and include a primary DNA order and a custodial non-communication order to protect the victim; a CSO/community sentence is inappropriate under Proulx because public sa…
Source excerpt
The sentencing judge erred by imposing a conditional sentence despite a fit global sentence of approximately 3.5 years, which precluded a conditional sentence under R. v. Fice; erred in failing to impose a consecutive sentence for the criminal organization offence as required by s. 467.14 of the Criminal Code; and erred in imposing a standalone restitution order reimbursing police, which is inconsistent with the victim-centred purpose of restitution. On consent and in light of exceptional circumstances and rehabilitation, the appropriate remedy was to allow the appeal, stay the criminal organ…
Source excerpt
The court sentenced Peter Hooper to a five-year aggregate custodial term for two counts of sexual interference against a vulnerable adolescent, with related sexual assault convictions conditionally stayed.
Sentencing for firearms offences: the accused pleaded guilty to possession while prohibited and possession of a loaded prohibited weapon, receiving 5.5 years less 15 months credit.
Applying Friesen and statutory sentencing principles, the court found the appropriate range for the s.151 offence involving EH to be 4–4.5 years and for KB to be 9–12 months, with a concurrent 3–6 month range for the s.733.1 breach; mandatory consecutive sentencing for different victims and for the breach produced an aggregate custodial sentence of 5 years 5 months (after a one-month remand credit), with ancillary orders (DNA, weapons prohibition, SOIRA, non-communication, publication ban) and waiver of victim surcharge due to undue hardship.
Source excerpt
The Court admitted the fresh evidence, treated the restrictive bail credit as a mitigating factor in accordance with R. v. C.C., 2021 ONCA 600, and held that an arithmetic adjustment to pre-sentence custody credit and its allocation to individual counts was appropriate to give effect to the sentencer's intention and avoid collateral immigration consequences; accordingly the sentences imposed were set aside and substituted as described.
Source excerpt
The Court held the trial judge's findings that the appellant had knowledge and control of the firearm, magazines and drugs were reasonable on the whole of the circumstantial evidence (location of items proximate to appellant's belongings, communications with a shooter, video linkage, appellant's occupancy and use of the phone); the verdicts were not unreasonable and the sentence, including a consecutive 12-month term for the second overcapacity magazine, was within principled range and properly imposed.
Source excerpt
The Court held the sentencing judge did not err in principle: grouping the offences into distinct phases justified consecutive sentencing for flight-related firearm offences, the totality principle was properly applied by reducing a consecutive term, the sentencing judge permissibly prioritized denunciation and deterrence given the facts, and there was no improper weighing of aggravating or mitigating factors; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
