R v Claros – 2019 ONCA 626 (Paciocco): [51] More importantly, the fact that two offences relating to the breach of a prohibition order occur in close succession, or even at the same time, is not a basis for imposing concurrent sentences. The principle that such offences should be served consecutively is intended to ensure that disregard of firearm prohibition Read more...
R v Claros – 2019 ONCA 626 (Pacioocco): [42] As indicated, the difficulty here is that the trial judge did not apply totality considerations. These considerations include whether the combined sentences, calculated individually and sentenced consecutively, would be longer than required to serve the principles of sentencing, or whether the combined sentence would be apt to crush the offender by Read more...
R v McBride – 2019 BCCA 305 (Fitch JA): [40] A delayed parole eligibility order remains out of the ordinary and must be used in a manner that is fair to the offender: Zinck at para. 29. Section 743.6 contemplates a two-step process. [41] At the first stage, the sentencing judge must determine the appropriate sentence for the offence, having Read more...
R v Ibeagha, 2019 ACCA 1534 (per curiam): [14] In Bigelow the court began with the general proposition that the test for finding jurisdiction in more than one territorial division is whether any element of the offence has occurred in the province claiming jurisdiction. It will be noted, however, that the factors enumerated in Bigelow do not refer expressly to Read more...
R v Asselin – 2019 MBCA 94 (Cameron JA): [28] Section 708 provides: Contempt 708(1) A person who, being required by law to attend or remain in attendance for the purpose of giving evidence, fails, without lawful excuse, to attend or remain in attendance accordingly is guilty of contempt of court. Punishment 708(2) A court, judge, justice or provincial court Read more...