Sentencing

Trial Fitness Clarified: The SCC’s Approach in R v Bharwani

When the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in R v Bharwani, it represented the first instance in over three decades that the highest court had the opportunity to interpret section 2 of the Criminal Code, since Parliament established the statutory definition for “unfit to stand trial” in 1991. Canadian mental disorder jurisprudence has come a long way in the previous three decades, but fitness—an issue central to the accused’s autonomy, trial fairness, and the “Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder” regime—remains largely governed by Taylor, an integral, but pre-Charter-evolution decision.

R v S.B.: Accountability, Youth Sentencing, and the Limits of Social Context

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R. v. S.B., 2025 SCC 24 [S.B.] engages critical questions regarding the Youth Criminal Justice Act’s (“YCJA”) framework for imposing adult sentences on young offenders. The role of social context evidence is central when evaluating whether the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness under section 72(1) of the YCJA. This appeal tests the boundaries of how youth courts weigh personal and systemic circumstances against the judgement and maturity displayed through the planning of criminal conduct.

Truth vs. Fairness in Sentencing: Lessons from R v Di Paola

In the decision of R v Di Paola, 2025 SCC 31 the Supreme Court of Canada examined how s. 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code should be interpreted during sentencing. The issue was whether a sentencing judge may consider, as aggravating factors, facts that could constitute a separate offence when that charge has already been laid but is no longer pending and has no rendered verdict. The Court’s decision clarifies both the scope of this provision and the Crown’s duty of fairness in presenting aggravating facts during sentencing.

APPEAL WATCH: Sentencing Specificity and Sexual Offences Against Children in R v Sheppard

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has granted leave [41126] to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal’s (“ABCA”) decision in R v Sheppard, 2023 ABCA 381 [Sheppard]. The case will join R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 [Friesen] and R v Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26 [Bertrand Marchand] as further guidance on sentencing offenders who […]

Parliament Doesn’t Make Mistakes: Clarifying Driving Prohibitions in R v Wolfe

In R v Wolfe, 2024 SCC 34 [Wolfe], a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) ruled that driving prohibitions cannot be imposed upon conviction for driving-related criminal negligence. The decision closes a years-long, multi-court debate over the statutory interpretation of new driving offence provisions in the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Code].

APPEAL WATCH: When Are Acquittals Appropriate on Appeal?

In R v Bouvette, 2023 BCCA 152 [Bouvette] the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (BCCA) set aside a guilty plea and ordered a stay of proceedings where the Crown failed to disclose material documents to the defence. In doing so, they adopted a strict version of the test for when an acquittal is an […]

Appeal Watch: Guilt and Conviction for Lesser Included Offences

In R v Wolfe, 2022 SKCA 132 [Wolfe], the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (“SKCA”) affirmed that part VIII.1 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Code] grants judges the authority to order driving prohibitions for driving-related criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm. In so doing, the SKCA disagreed with the Ontario Court of […]

Appeal Watch: Sentencing Offenders with Disabilities in J.W. v His Majesty the King (Part II)

For an overview of the judicial history of this case, please see the first installment of this contribution. In this second contribution, I focus on the two underlying legal questions before the SCC.    

Appeal Watch: Sentencing Offenders with Disabilities in J.W. v His Majesty the King (Part I)

Content Warning: The facts of this case involve the mention of serious violence and sexual assault.   The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has granted leave [40956] to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s (“ONCA”) decision in R v J.W., 2023 ONCA 552 (“J.W”). The case revolves around the complex web of jurisprudence informing […]

R v Basque: Strange Statutory Interpretation

Section 259(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada [Code] imposes a mandatory minimum; at sentencing, judges must apply a driving prohibition of at least twelve months for offenders convicted of impaired driving pursuant to this provision. Interpretation of the interaction between three provisions implies that pre-sentence driving prohibitions cannot be credited toward that minimum. The […]