Sentencing Principles In Canada
Sentencing Principles in Canada
In Canada, sentencing is governed primarily by the Criminal Code of Canada (sections 718–718.2). Sentencing aims to balance multiple objectives:
Denunciation – condemning unlawful conduct.
Deterrence – discouraging the offender and the public.
Separation/Protection of Society – removing dangerous offenders.
Rehabilitation – encouraging offender reform.
Restitution/Repair of Harm – compensating victims or community.
Proportionality – ensuring the sentence fits the gravity of the offence.
Courts have interpreted these principles in numerous cases, shaping Canadian sentencing jurisprudence.
1. R v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688
Background:
Jamie Tanis Gladue, an Indigenous woman, pleaded guilty to manslaughter. She had a history of abuse, substance dependency, and systemic marginalization.
Legal Issues:
Should courts consider unique systemic and background factors of Indigenous offenders during sentencing?
Application of Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, promoting alternatives to incarceration for Indigenous offenders.
Holding:
Supreme Court emphasized that sentencing must consider the circumstances of Indigenous offenders, including colonial history, residential schools, and social disadvantage.
Gladue reports must guide sentencing judges.
Impact:
Established the Gladue principle.
Courts must consider restorative justice and alternatives to incarceration for Indigenous offenders.
2. R v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433
Background:
Two Indigenous men were convicted of assault. The lower courts applied Gladue principles inconsistently.
Legal Issues:
Clarification on how Gladue factors should be applied.
Balancing proportionality and systemic factors.
Holding:
Supreme Court reaffirmed Gladue principles, emphasizing that systemic factors must always be considered, but sentences must remain proportionate.
Impact:
Strengthened sentencing equity for Indigenous offenders.
Reinforced judicial obligation to mitigate systemic bias in sentencing.
3. R v. Proulx, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 235
Background:
Proulx pleaded guilty to a violent assault. The lower court imposed probation. Crown appealed, arguing the sentence was too lenient.
Legal Issues:
Application of principles of proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence in sentencing violent offenders.
Holding:
Supreme Court clarified that sentencing objectives must be balanced, particularly for violent crimes.
Judges must justify departures from minimum or guideline sentences.
Impact:
Reinforced proportionality and judicial discretion.
Highlighted need for transparent reasoning in sentencing.
4. R v. Nur, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773
Background:
Nur was convicted for possession of a restricted firearm with intent to commit an offence. Mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years was challenged as unconstitutional.
Legal Issues:
Does a mandatory minimum sentence violate section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (protection against cruel and unusual punishment)?
Holding:
Supreme Court ruled the 3-year minimum unconstitutional in certain circumstances, as it could lead to grossly disproportionate sentences.
Impact:
Clarified limits of judicial discretion under mandatory minimums.
Emphasized proportionality and individualization in sentencing.
5. R v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23
Background:
Marc Lépine-style mass murderer (Quebec mosque shooting) sentenced for multiple murders.
Legal Issues:
Whether consecutive life sentences without parole eligibility violated principles of proportionality and sentencing law.
Holding:
Supreme Court upheld the first-ever 40-year parole ineligibility sentence, emphasizing public protection, denunciation, and deterrence.
Impact:
Demonstrated parole ineligibility as a tool for proportionality in severe crimes.
Highlighted the tension between rehabilitation and public protection.
6. R v. Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206
Background:
An Indigenous offender convicted of sexual assault sought a reduced sentence, citing Gladue factors.
Legal Issues:
Proper application of Gladue principles in sexual offence cases.
Balancing systemic factors and denunciation.
Holding:
Supreme Court affirmed Gladue factors cannot outweigh the gravity of serious violent crimes, but should still influence sentence length and conditions.
Impact:
Clarified that Gladue factors are not automatic reductions; proportionality and public safety remain central.
7. R v. Arcand, [2010] ONCA 715
Background:
Arcand, a repeat offender, committed armed robbery. Crown argued for a lengthy custodial sentence to protect society.
Legal Issues:
Application of general and specific deterrence and protection of society in repeat offenders.
Holding:
Court upheld a substantial custodial sentence, highlighting criminal history, high risk of reoffending, and need for public protection.
Impact:
Reinforced risk-based sentencing for repeat offenders.
Showed the interplay of deterrence, protection, and proportionality.
Key Sentencing Principles Highlighted by Case Law
| Principle | Case(s) | Key Takeaways |
|---|---|---|
| Gladue / Indigenous Sentencing | R v. Gladue, R v. Ipeelee | Consider systemic, social, and historical factors. Explore restorative justice. |
| Proportionality | R v. Proulx, R v. Nur | Sentence must fit crime severity; mandatory minimums can be unconstitutional. |
| Denunciation / Deterrence | R v. Bissonnette, R v. Arcand | Severe crimes may require long sentences to protect society and signal condemnation. |
| Rehabilitation | R v. Gladue, R v. Nasogaluak | Especially for marginalized offenders, rehabilitation and reintegration considered. |
| Judicial Discretion | R v. Nur, R v. Proulx | Courts must balance principles; written reasoning is critical. |
Summary
Canadian sentencing emphasizes:
Proportionality – sentence reflects seriousness of offence and offender circumstances.
Individualization – each offender is unique; Gladue reports help for Indigenous offenders.
Multi-objective sentencing – balancing denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, restitution, and public protection.
Judicial discretion – courts must justify sentences; mandatory minimums are limited.
Restorative justice – where appropriate, especially for marginalized or first-time offenders.
RELATED Blog
0 comments