Canada Case Law

R. v. Adams-Clarke

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Balancing aggravating factors (use of a loaded prohibited sawed-off shotgun in a public place near a playground, breach of release/firearms prohibitions, extensive prior violent and weapons record, leaving scene and disposing of weapon) against mitigating factors (youth, extensive trauma, mental health issues and IRCA contextual factors) and applicable caselaw and sentencing principles, the Court fixed parole ineligibility at 12 years from custody (May 12, 2021).

Source excerpt

• Second-degree murder
• Parole ineligibility period
• Impact of race and culture assessment
• Firearms prohibition order
• Dna order
• Forfeiture order

Read case analysis

R. v. Nguyen

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Sentencing for second degree murder and assault with a weapon. The court imposed life imprisonment with 12 years of parole ineligibility, plus concurrent three years on the assault count.

• Second degree murder
• Assault with a weapon
• Parole ineligibility period
• Mandatory life sentence
• Forfeiture
• Weapons prohibition

Read case analysis

R. v. Bacon

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On a guilty plea to second-degree murder, the court imposed the mandatory life sentence and fixed parole ineligibility at 20 years on a joint recommendation.

• Second-degree murder
• Parole ineligibility period
• Mandatory life sentence
• Joint recommendation
• Second-degree-murder
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

R. v. Bona

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia allowed a limited appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code to assess proposed conviction and sentence appeal grounds.

• Appointment of counsel under s.684
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Jury instructions on circumstantial evidence
• Unreasonable verdict
• Parole ineligibility period
• Appointment-of-counsel

Read case analysis

R. v. Danjou

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On sentencing for second degree murder, the court imposed life imprisonment with 12 years of parole ineligibility, citing domestic violence, brutality, and aggravating circumstances.

• Second degree murder
• Parole ineligibility period
• Aggravating and mitigating factors
• Victim impact statements
• Second-degree-murder
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

R. v. Martel

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Michael Martel pleaded guilty to second degree murder and received life imprisonment with parole ineligibility fixed at 14 years.

• Second degree murder
• Parole ineligibility period
• Aggravating and mitigating factors
• Guilty plea impact
• Victim impact statements
• Firearms prohibition

Read case analysis

R. v. Bidesi

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court sentenced Russell Bidesi to life imprisonment for second degree murder and set parole ineligibility at 15 years, weighing aggravating violence against youth and limited rehabilitation.

• Second degree murder
• Parole ineligibility period
• Section 745.4 criminal code
• Dangerous offender assessment
• Victim impact statements
• Mandatory ancillary orders

Read case analysis

R. v. Rushton

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applying s.745.4 and sentencing principles (including parity and deterrence), the brutal domestic killings and breach of trust — together with two separate murders — place the case in the middle Nash range (15–20 years); the court set parole ineligibility at 18 years on each count to run concurrently commencing December 27, 2013.

Source excerpt

• Second degree murder
• Parole ineligibility period
• Concurrent vs consecutive parole
• Victim impact statements
• Ancillary orders
• Guilty plea acceptance

Read case analysis

R. v. O.V.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed a sentence appeal from a second degree murder conviction, upholding 15 years of parole ineligibility and rejecting arguments based on mental disorder and immigration status.

• Murder
• Parole ineligibility period
• Mitigating factor - mental illness
• Future dangerousness
• Day parole eligibility
• Statutory interpretation

Read case analysis

R. v. Pepping

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge's finding that the statement was voluntary was reasonable because the appellant was eager to talk and aware of the legal consequences; the absence of a caution is one factor to consider but not determinative; the Corbett ruling was sound; and the 15-year parole ineligibility fell within a reasonable sentencing range — therefore the conviction and sentence appeals are dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statement
• Right to counsel/caution
• Corbett evidence/impeachment by prior convictions
• Parole ineligibility period
• Appellate deference

Read case analysis