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
Sentence appeal partly allowed after fresh evidence of harsh custodial conditions. The Court held the original two-year penitentiary term was fit when imposed, but varied its service to a conditional sentence.
The Court granted leave to appeal but concluded the trial judge's sentencing decision—imposing 42 months imprisonment with 6 months Downes credit and 12 days presentence custody credit—fell within the broad discretionary range and was not shown to be an error in principle; therefore the sentence is fit and must be affirmed.
Source excerpt
The Court Martial Appeal Court admitted fresh evidence of administrative release, held that release does not automatically make detention inoperative, and suspended the remaining detention for one year.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed sentence appeals arising from criminal contempt convictions for blocking access to Trans Mountain worksites.
Sentence appeal allowed in part. The court replaced a six-month jail term for assault causing bodily harm with a three-month conditional sentence order.
The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing judge did not err in principle: she properly identified and weighed aggravating and mitigating factors, her finding of limited insight was supported by the forensic report, and the proffered fresh evidence did not undermine the fitness of the five-year custodial sentence.
Source excerpt
Hearing related proceedings or referring to a separate conviction for context does not, without cogent substantive evidence of prejudice, create a reasonable apprehension of bias; references to R. v. Ladelpha were contextual and not relied upon; the trial judge's credibility findings were supportable and entitled to deference; and the 25 month consecutive sentence was proportionate and fit given the gravity, culpability and the primacy of denunciation and deterrence for offences against justice participants.
Source excerpt
The trial judge expressly considered the harsh conditions of presentence custody and, applying this court's decision in Marshall, treated those conditions as a mitigating factor; having accounted for all proper mitigating factors the imposed concurrent sentences of 4.5 years are fit and the sentence appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The sentencing judge adequately considered denunciation, deterrence, the offender's record and the guilty plea; the nine-month sentence, though at the lower end, was not a demonstrably unfit or unreasonable departure from proportionality principles, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed: the trial judge did not apply uneven scrutiny and reasonably rejected speculative expert evidence of microsleep given reconstruction and vehicle data; the six-year sentence was within range and not demonstrably unfit; alleged s.14 interpretation errors were not material to the conduct of the trial and are remediable by a certified Punjabi translation of the Reasons for Sentence rather than a new trial.
Source excerpt
Explore more
