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 court upheld detention on a s. 525 review, finding a strong Crown case, serious firearm allegations, and an inadequate release plan.
The joint submission was rejected because, given the gravity of using a very young child as a photographic prop, the offender’s extensive prior breaches of probation, assessed moderate‑high sexual recidivism risk, and the need for sex‑offender treatment available only in federal custody, acceptance of the joint recommendation would undermine the public interest and bring the administration of justice into disrepute; therefore a longer federal sentence was imposed (42 months reduced by 501 days remand credit) with ancillary orders and concurrent shorter sentences for possession and breaches of…
Source excerpt
Sentencing reasons for Reza Moazami after convictions for multiple prostitution-related, sexual and trafficking offences involving 11 complainants. Global sentence: 23 years.
The Court held the sentencing judge did not commit an error in principle; he considered the 'jump principle' and mitigating factors, and the six-year sentence less 1291 days credit (with DNA order and lifetime firearms prohibition) was within the comparable range and not unfit, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Where a sentence is the product of a joint submission accepted by the court and is a fit sentence, the Court will not reduce that sentence to avoid immigration or deportation consequences; therefore the 40-month joint submission sentence must be upheld and the requested 16-month reduction denied.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was granted because the appellant raised an arguable legal error: the sentencing judge improperly relied on a minimum sentence for possession of child pornography to conclude that a non‑custodial sentence for sexual assault would be illogical; release pending appeal was granted because the appellant satisfied s.679(4): the appeal had sufficient merit, he would surrender as required, and detention was not necessary in the public interest given lack of prior record, compliance while on pre‑trial release, residence and supervision by his mother, cognitive impairment and the unnec…
Source excerpt
Absent notice under s.665 the sentencing judge is not confined to the minimum applicable to a first offender; s.665 only fixes the bottom limit that may be enforced if notice is given, and between that minimum and the statutory maximum the judge may weigh all relevant factors, including prior convictions, and impose any fit sentence. Section 255(1)(a) does not limit the judge to imposing a fine for a first offence.
Source excerpt
Explore more
