Sentencing

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.

R v JW: Programming-Based Sentencing, “Wrongful Conduct,” and Enhanced Credit

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v JW addresses two intertwined controversies in Canadian sentencing law. First, it clarifies whether—and how—a sentencing judge may take account of the time an offender is likely to need to complete institutional programming when setting a custodial term. Second, it refines the meaning of “wrongful conduct” for the purpose of denying enhanced pre-sentence credit under s 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

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. Hills: SCC Overturns Harper-Era Mandatory Minimum Sentence (Part II)

The Supreme Court of Canada [“SCC” or “The Court”] recently released its decision on three Alberta cases: R. v. Hills 2023 SCC 2 [“Hills”] and R. v. Hilbach 2023 SCC 3 [“Hilbach”], the latter argued with the companion appeal, R. v. Zwozdesky. These cases challenge the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, inviting the Court […]

R. v. Hills: SCC Clarifies Use of Reasonable Hypotheticals in Section 12 Challenge (Part I)

The Supreme Court of Canada [“SCC” or “The Court”] recently released its decision on three Alberta cases: R. v. Hills 2023 SCC 2 [“Hills”] and R. v. Hilbach 2023 SCC 3, the latter argued with the companion appeal, R. v. Zwozdesky. These cases challenge the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, inviting the Court to […]