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 Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a 6-year sentence for dangerous driving causing death and a concurrent 4-year sentence for bodily harm, with a 16-year driving ban.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing a lifetime driving prohibition to ten years and nine months and refusing a work-related carve-out.
A conditional sentence was rejected because the offender's high moral blameworthiness—novice driver with a BAC of 168 mg/100mL, travelling at approximately 118 kph, causing three deaths—meant that community service of a CSO would not adequately satisfy the paramount objectives of denunciation and general deterrence; taking into account mitigating factors including youth, remorse, lack of criminal record, rehabilitation progress and Gladue factors, the appropriate and proportionate sentence was fixed at two years less a day custody, followed by three years probation with strict conditions, a t…
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a 2.5-year sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, but ordered the six-year driving ban to run from the sentencing date.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Christopher Hamilton’s conviction appeal for dangerous driving causing death and upheld the sentence, varying only the driving prohibition.
The trial judge correctly interpreted s.320.2 as applying its minimums only where the offender had a prior conviction for the same bodily-harm category of offence; because the statutory text and scheme are unambiguous and Parliament did not deem simpliciter convictions to be earlier offences for s.320.2, a nine-month conditional sentence order was legally available and, despite peripheral errors (judicial notice and non‑consideration of s.320.22(e)), the sentence was fit and was therefore upheld.
Source excerpt
The joint recommendation is accepted because the proposed 15-month custodial sentence to be served in the community under a Conditional Sentence Order, followed by 12 months probation and a three-year driving prohibition, falls within an acceptable range given the gravity of the offence, the offender's reduced moral culpability from returning/reporting to police, acknowledged aggravating factors (two victims, serious injuries, alcohol, prior driving convictions) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, strong community ties), and because a conditional sentence would not endanger communit…
Source excerpt
The sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction to impose a lifetime driving prohibition because the statutory maximum prohibition in the circumstances was 10 years under s.320.24(5)(b); given the egregious facts, substituting the 10-year maximum prohibition was appropriate, and an adjournment to raise ineffective assistance was not in the interests of justice.
Source excerpt
The motion judge found the grounds of appeal were not frivolous and that detention was not necessary to secure public safety or to preserve public confidence; accordingly release pending appeal was justified. A partial stay of the driving prohibition was warranted because there is a genuine statutory interpretation issue concerning whether s.320.24(4) permits a prohibition broader than the specific conveyance (snowmobile), so the non‑snowmobile portion of the prohibition should be stayed pending appeal.
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed the appeal and held the sentencing judge did not err in principle and did not impose a demonstrably unfit sentence in imposing a lifetime driving prohibition: given the seriousness of the offence, the prior related dangerous conduct, psychiatric evidence of unmanaged risk, and the discretionary nature of ancillary orders, a lifetime prohibition was an open and reasonable sentencing choice subject to Parole Board review after ten years.
Source excerpt
Explore more
