All 8 - SENTENCING ISSUES

R v Wood, [1975] O.J. No. 290 (OCA – Jessup): [4] It is our view that in cases of violence resulting in injury the requirement of general deterrence to the public militates, in almost every case, against the grant of a conditional discharge, notwithstanding considerations personal to the accused. Read more...

R v Lacasse, [2015] S.C.J. No.64 (Wagner): [113] In the instant case, the driving prohibition has the same effect regardless of whether it was imposed before or after the respondent was sentenced. In R. v. Sharma, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 814, Lamer C.J., dissenting, explained that the accused had in fact begun serving his sentence, given that the driving prohibition would Read more...

R v FEDELE, 2017 ONCA 554 – (Rouleau): [34] Concurrent and consecutive are concepts that apply to periods of time. There can be concurrent sentences of incarceration or concurrent prohibitions on driving. Fines and surcharges are not punishments which are measured in time — they are measured in amounts of money. Read more...

R v FEDELE, 2017 ONCA 554 – (Rouleau): [40] I conclude that the Criminal Code does not allow for concurrent victim surcharges. As a result, a sentence that provides for “concurrent” victim surcharges is not one that can lawfully be imposed. Read more...

Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) – 2017 SCC 50 (Cote): [5] Section 36(1)(a) of the IRPA provides the basis for finding a permanent resident inadmissible to Canada on grounds of “serious criminality”: —36 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for (a) having been convicted in Canada of an Read more...