Canada Case Law

R. v. Smith

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The conviction and sentence are upheld because the trial judge reasonably relied on circumstantial and descriptive evidence to identify the appellant, properly considered eyewitness frailties and environmental factors, the risk of cross-racial misidentification did not pose a serious danger in these circumstances, and the sentencing decision was a permissible exercise of discretion.

Source excerpt

• Aggravated assault
• Eyewitness identification
• Cross-racial misidentification
• Identification evidence
• Sentencing discretion
• Conditional sentence

Read case analysis

Canadian Western Bank v. Canadian Motor Freight Ltd.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court upheld the motion judge's findings of civil contempt because the receivership order unambiguously required immediate access and delivery of property to the Receiver, the appellants had actual notice, and their conduct in moving the fleet to United Group's yard and denying access constituted an intentional breach; the fresh evidence failed the Palmer test and would not have affected the result; sentencing and costs awards were within the motion judge's discretion and not manifestly unfit.

Source excerpt

• Civil contempt
• Receivership orders
• Asset recovery
• Leave to appeal under s.193(e) bia
• Fresh evidence
• Costs

Read case analysis

R. v. Burke-Whittaker

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The sentencing judge erred in principle by placing undue weight on rehabilitation and failing to identify sufficient exceptional circumstances to justify a non‑custodial sentence for possession where the firearm was discharged; the conditional sentence imposed was demonstrably unfit and departed unreasonably from the proportionality principle, but in the unique circumstances of this case—where the respondent had already served a substantial portion of the conditional sentence and shown continued rehabilitation—the Crown’s appeal was dismissed and the existing conditional sentence and probatio…

Source excerpt

• Firearms offences
• Possession of loaded firearm
• Sentencing discretion
• Conditional sentence
• Rehabilitation
• Denunciation and deterrence

Read case analysis

Veinot v. His Majesty the King

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by the record, no material misapprehension undermined the verdicts, the reasons were contextually sufficient to permit appellate review, and the sentencing exercise contained no error; therefore the convictions and sentence were upheld and appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Assault with a weapon s.267(a)
• Common assault s.266
• Sufficiency of reasons
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Credibility assessment
• Standard of proof

Read case analysis

R. v. Hayer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted the Crown’s application for a pre-sentence report with a psychological component before sentencing in a manslaughter case.

• Pre-sentence report
• Psychological assessment
• Sentencing discretion
• Publication ban (s.486.5)
• Pre-sentence-report
• Psychological-assessment

Read case analysis

R. v. Robertson

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Probation was varied from 18 months to 12 months because the sentencing judge gave no reasons for exceeding the Crown's position; the appellant is credited with 20 months and 21 days toward the imposed driving prohibition; the remaining 5-year driving prohibition is upheld because the sentencing judge's reasons and the significant aggravating factors justify it.

Source excerpt

• Failing to remain at scene
• Driving prohibition
• Probation
• Sentencing discretion

Read case analysis

R. v. J.Z.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

A finding that a case is 'exceptional' under s.39(1)(d) does not automatically entitle the Crown to a custodial sentence; the sentencing judge must still assess whether only custody would reflect societal values under s.38, and the trial judge did not err in concluding custody was not required, so the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Youth criminal justice act s.39(1)(d)
• Sentencing discretion
• Exceptional case gateway
• Interpretation of statutory sentencing provisions

Read case analysis

R. v. Eden

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge did not err: the guilty pleas were voluntary and informed (entered when represented and found fit), the motion to strike the pleas was properly dismissed, and the sentencing judge acted within his discretion; the convictions and the five-year global sentence are upheld.

Source excerpt

• Impaired operation causing death
• Impaired operation causing bodily harm
• Fail to remain
• Guilty plea voluntariness
• Fitness to stand trial
• Sentencing discretion

Read case analysis

R. v. R.A.O.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld a long-term offender designation and 10-year supervision order for a first-time offender convicted of serious child sexual offences.

• Long‑term supervision order
• Dangerous/long‑term offender designation
• Risk assessment
• Sentencing discretion
• Publication ban
• Long-term-supervision-order

Read case analysis

R. v. Chen

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was allowed because the Court was satisfied that, based on the trial judge's reasoning, a conditional sentence was a fit sentence and would have been imposed had that option been available, permitting the Court of Appeal to substitute a conditional sentence.

Source excerpt

• Conditional sentence
• Leave to appeal
• Sentencing discretion

Read case analysis