Canada Case Law

R. v. Skene

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The trial judge erred: a record suspension under the Criminal Records Act does not prevent a sentencing court from considering a prior conviction for the purpose of imposing an increased mandatory penalty under s.320.19 where the Crown has complied with s.727 notice requirements; therefore the respondent was subject to the 30-day mandatory minimum for a second impaired driving offence and the appeal is allowed.

Source excerpt

• Record suspension
• Criminal records act
• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Notice of increased penalty
• Impaired driving

Read case analysis

R. v. Ni

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Sentencing after jury convictions for break and enter to steal firearms and trafficking an SKS rifle led to a five-year global sentence, with Charter-related mitigation and ancillary orders.

• Break and enter
• Theft of firearms
• Trafficking in firearms
• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Concurrent vs consecutive sentences
• Charter s.9 arbitrary detention

Read case analysis

R. v. Reed

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court imposed mandatory life with 25 years parole ineligibility for first-degree murder and concurrent terms of six years (s.244.2(3)(a)) and four years (s.95(1)) for the firearms offences, holding that the November 2020 possession was related to the September 2020 shooting and therefore the firearms sentences should be concurrent to each other and to the life sentence. Pretrial credit: one-to-one for murder from April 21, 2024, and 1.5:1 for the firearms offences, resulting in 13.5 months credit applied to the firearms sentences. Ancillary orders for a DNA sample under s.487.051(1) and a…

Source excerpt

• First-degree murder
• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Concurrent vs consecutive sentencing
• Pretrial custody credit
• Ancillary orders (dna, weapons prohibition)
• Systemic/background factors in sentencing

Read case analysis

R. v. N.A.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Although the trial judge erred in concluding a mandatory minimum sentence applied and thereby excluding a conditional sentence, the error did not warrant interference because the offence involved significant aggravating factors (victim's youth, serious impact, breach of trust and post‑offence victim blaming) that justified upholding the one‑year custodial sentence.

Source excerpt

• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Conditional sentence order
• Position of trust
• Aggravating factors
• Publication restriction ss.486.4 and 486.6

Read case analysis

R v. J.K.G.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The mandatory minimum in s.286.1(2) was not struck down on these facts; six months imprisonment for s.286.1(2) is a fit and proportional sentence given the offender's age, abuse of trust, lack of remorse and the need for denunciation/deterrence. The Kienapple stay of the s.163.1(4) conviction was refused because the offences serve different statutory purposes and have distinct elements. Sentences were structured as: 6 months custody for s.286.1(2); 6 months concurrent for sexual assault and criminal harassment; a consecutive 6-month conditional sentence for s.163.1(4) with supervision and tre…

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault
• Attempted possession of child pornography
• Communication for sexual services of person under 18
• Criminal harassment
• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Conditional sentence

Read case analysis

R. v. Bzezi

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Given defence counsel's tactical decision not to challenge officers' recognition evidence the issue of identification was not a live contest; in that context the trial judge's identification and after-the-fact conduct instructions were adequate, Crown's isolated closing excess was not prejudicial, circumstantial and testimonial evidence reasonably supported a finding the gun was a functional firearm triggering the 7-year mandatory minimum, and the sentencing judge did not err in ordering the robbery sentence consecutive as a proper exercise of discretion.

Source excerpt

• Eyewitness identification
• Recognition evidence
• In-dock identification
• After-the-fact conduct
• Jury instructions
• Crown closing submissions

Read case analysis

R. v. Basso

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Fresh evidence application dismissed because new material would not have altered the verdict or caused prejudice; conviction upheld because trial judge on the accused's own evidence found he adverted to the risk the complainant was underage and proceeded, satisfying the subjective recklessness mens rea required by Carbone/Morrison; ineffective assistance allegations failed for lack of demonstrated prejudice; sentence of 12 months was fit but the mandatory minimum in s.271(a) was declared unconstitutional under s.12 of the Charter and of no force or effect; remnant of custodial sentence stayed…

Source excerpt

• Sexual assault with a minor
• Mistake of age/recklessness
• Fresh evidence admission
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Charter s.12 challenge

Read case analysis

R. v. A.B.

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Applying Friesen and Bertrand Marchand, the offender's position of trust, significant age gap, multiple communications, and material impact on the victim made a custodial sentence required; the judge found a fit sentence of 12 months custody and two years probation, ancillary DNA and SOIRA orders and a $200 victim surcharge, and therefore declined to adjudicate the s.12 Charter challenge because the imposed sentence exceeds the statutory six month minimum.

Source excerpt

• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Making sexually explicit material available to person under 16
• S.171.1(1)(b)
• S.171.1(2)(a) constitutionality
• Grooming
• Luring

Read case analysis

R. v. Patterson

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appellant’s release pending appeal was refused under s. 679(4) of the Criminal Code.

• Leave to appeal
• Release pending appeal
• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Use of imitation firearm
• Breach of release order
• Sentence-appeal

Read case analysis

Czech Republic v. Karicka

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Minister reasonably concluded surrender did not breach s.7 because there was no evidence of a real risk of persecution given improvements in conditions for Roma, delay was caused by the applicant absconding and did not prejudice fairness as a new trial is available, the two-year mandatory minimum with credit is not shocking to the Canadian conscience, and the Minister properly balanced personal circumstances against treaty obligations; therefore the decision fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and the judicial review is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• S.7 charter
• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Delay/prescription
• Discrimination against roma
• Abuse of process
• Standard of review - reasonableness

Read case analysis