Canada Case Law

R. v. White

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The sentencing judge erred as a matter of law by relying on Bratzer, an exceptional and materially distinguishable precedent, which led to a failure to apply the proportionality principle and the primacy of denunciation and deterrence; the Court allowed the Crown appeals, set aside the conditional sentence and substituted a fit global sentence of four years' imprisonment with specified surrender and credit directions.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing principles
• Proportionality
• Denunciation
• Deterrence
• Conditional sentence
• Irca/social context evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Purvis

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a sentence appeal in a large-scale cocaine importation case, finding the judge improperly anchored the sentence to a co-accused’s joint-submission sentence.

• Sentencing
• Parity
• Joint submissions
• Mitigation for mental disability and personal circumstances
• Large-scale drug importation
• Parity-principle

Read case analysis

R. v. B.F.-S.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal sentence but dismissed the appeal, upholding an 11-year-and-3-month global sentence and related ancillary orders.

• Sentencing
• Child sexual abuse
• Child pornography
• Pre-sentence custody credit
• Ancillary orders
• Parity

Read case analysis

R. v. King

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Mr. King was sentenced to two years’ incarceration for transferring a restricted firearm without lawful authority. The court rejected parity with co-accused Pamela Meek.

• Parity
• Proportionality
• Gladue factors
• Conditional sentence
• General deterrence
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

R. v. Otchere

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed a sentence appeal in a dial-a-dope cocaine trafficking case, finding an error in principle but upholding six months' imprisonment and 12 months' probation as fit.

• Drug trafficking
• Dial-a-dope operations
• Conditional sentence orders
• Proportionality
• Exceptional circumstances
• Parity

Read case analysis

R. v. Kang

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court sentenced Jannat Bibi Nadeem to a conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by three years’ probation, for conspiracy to traffic drugs.

• Conspiracy to traffic
• Fentanyl trafficking
• Conditional sentence
• Rehabilitation
• Parity
• Youthful offender

Read case analysis

R. v. Knight

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld a three-year sentence for sexual interference, granting leave and an extension of time but dismissing the sentence appeal.

• Sexual interference s.151
• Sentencing principles
• Proportionality
• Parity
• Mitigation for youth and childhood sexual victimization
• Honest but mistaken belief in age

Read case analysis

R. v. Alexis

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the Court found the sentencing judge properly considered Gladue principles but had insufficient evidence to give them significant weight, properly considered COVID-19 custody conditions as a mitigating factor without deducting specific days, and did not err in applying the parity or totality principles; the global sentence was within the acceptable range.

Source excerpt

• Gladue principles
• Pre-trial custody credit (duncan)
• Totality
• Parity
• Firearms offences
• Dangerous operation

Read case analysis

R. v. Parker

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge erred in principle by failing to consider parity and the jump principle and by under-crediting Summers credit; appellate court substituted sentences of six years (making available) and four years (possession) and increased Summers credit by 47 days to a total of 2 years and 47 days (applied to both sentences); no Duncan credit awarded.

Source excerpt

• Child pornography offences
• Sentencing principles
• Parity
• Jump principle
• Pre-trial custody credit (summers and duncan)
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

R. v. 1222149 Ontario Ltd. (Dairy Queen and/or Embrun DQ Grill & Chill)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is allowed because the appeal court and sentencing justice erred by restricting consideration of corporate size to the local store and by treating an individual-offender precedent as directly comparable to a corporation; those errors materially impacted the fine, and a $40,000 fine plus victim fine surcharge is appropriate to achieve specific and general deterrence given the respondent operates seven stores employing 84 FTEs.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Fines
• Parity
• Corporate liability
• Deterrence
• Corporate size and economic activity

Read case analysis