Canada Case Law

R. v. Milne

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the Crown appeal because the sentencing judge erred in principle by finding mental illness significantly contributed to the offences without sufficient evidence demonstrating causation or the extent of attenuation of moral culpability, and by overstating the exceptional nature of rehabilitative efforts; accordingly the custodial sentence was increased to 2.5 years for sexual assault and 1 year consecutive for transmitting child pornography, less time served credited at 4.5 days.

Source excerpt

• Mitigation due to mental illness
• Moral culpability
• Rehabilitation
• Sentence range
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

R. v. Lawrence

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the convictions and sentence were reasonable on the totality of the evidence: possession of the victim's property, balaclava, blood consistent with the victim on the appellant's clothing, timely apprehension and other corroborative facts established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the preliminary inquiry transcript was not admissible as fresh evidence because it was available at trial and would not have changed the result; the sentence was fit in light of the seriousness of a home invasion, the appellant's prior record and aggravating factors; assault conviction was stayed und…

Source excerpt

• Robbery
• Assault
• Break and enter
• Disguise with intent
• Possession of property obtained by crime
• Circumstantial evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Li

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Sentence appeal not at issue; Wei George Li received two years in federal penitentiary for causing damage by fire, with no restitution order and a DNA order made.

• Causing damage by fire
• Sentence range
• Restitution
• Dna order
• Mitigation and aggravation
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

R. v. Diaz

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court accepted the trial judge's 4-6 year range but found a six year sentence was excessive in light of strong mitigating factors and the appellant's limited prior record; the appropriate sentence was reduced to five years and the $400 victim surcharge was set aside.

Source excerpt

• Sentence range
• Mitigating factors
• Appeal abandonment
• Victim surcharge

Read case analysis

R. v. Davies

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed from a sentence for fentanyl trafficking. The Court held the judge erred in finding actual knowledge without evidence, but the error did not affect the 32-month sentence.

• Trafficking
• Fentanyl
• Knowledge and wilful blindness
• Rehabilitation
• Aggravating and mitigating factors
• Sentence range

Read case analysis

R. v. Punia

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The sentencing judge did not err in his factual findings; the facts (stabbing, significant blood loss, death without seeking aid, concealment for three years) constituted aggravated manslaughter; a 12-year sentence is within the established 8-12 year range and is a fit and proper sentence; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Manslaughter
• Aggravated manslaughter
• Sentence range
• Appeal against sentence

Read case analysis

R. v. Pun

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge did not impermissibly reverse the burden of proof by noting the absence of a competing narrative; his focus on lack of other evidence was a proper application of circumstantial-evidence principles (Villaroman, Noble). His credibility finding for the complainant was reasonable and entitled to deference absent palpable and overriding error (Gagnon). The evidence supported a conviction for fraud over $5,000 and the 30-month sentence was within the appropriate range; therefore the conviction and sentence stand.

Source excerpt

• Fraud over $5,000
• Burden of proof
• Credibility assessment
• Circumstantial evidence
• Right to silence
• Sentence range

Read case analysis

R. v. Summers

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's three year sentence was within an appropriate range: theft of narcotics from a pharmacy is a significantly more serious form of commercial break and enter, and aggravating factors (extensive record, planning, loss and damage) justified the three year term in light of R. v. Penney and sentencing principles in s.718.

Source excerpt

• Sentence range
• Aggravating and mitigating factors
• Guilty plea
• Precedent (r. v. penney)
• Leave to appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. Ogbamichael

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Immigration consequences alone cannot justify a sentence outside the appropriate sentencing range; given the appellant's serious criminal history and multiple breaches of court orders, a six month sentence was not within or close to the appropriate range, so the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Sentence range
• Immigration consequences of sentence
• Error in principle
• Breach of court orders

Read case analysis

R. v. Charlie

Court

Yukon Court of Appeal

Crown appeal from sentence for robbery dismissed. The Yukon Court of Appeal upheld a sentence tailored to the offender’s Gladue and FASD circumstances.

• Robbery
• Sentence range
• Gladue principles
• Moral culpability
• Home invasion
• Rehabilitation

Read case analysis