Cory

The appellant, an aboriginal offender, was convicted of sexual assault after assaulting an intoxicated and unconscious 18-year-old victim.

The sentencing judge imposed a 20-month custodial sentence, finding that deterrence and denunciation were paramount and a conditional sentence would be inappropriate, despite the offender's aboriginal status.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while s. 718.2(e) requires a different methodology for assessing a fit sentence for an aboriginal offender, it does not necessarily mandate a different result.

The sentencing judge reasonably concluded that the serious nature of the offence required a custodial sentence to satisfy the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The Crown appealed a 21-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for historical convictions of indecent assault and gross indecency against a child.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying the principles from R. v. Proulx, dismissed the appeal on equal division.

The majority found that the trial judge's decision to impose a conditional sentence was not demonstrably unfit and adequately addressed denunciation and deterrence through strict conditions like house arrest.

The dissenting judges argued the sentence overemphasized restorative objectives and failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching against his step-granddaughter and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal substituted a nine-month conditional sentence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that a nine-month conditional sentence was unfit given the gravity of the offences and the accused's high moral blameworthiness.

The original nine-month sentence of incarceration was restored but stayed since the accused had already served the conditional sentence in its entirety.

The accused, an employer, was convicted of sexual assault and common assault against a young employee.

At trial, he was sentenced to one year of incarceration for the sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal substituted a six-month conditional sentence, applying new sentencing provisions enacted after the trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that while the accused was entitled to the benefit of the new conditional sentencing regime, a conditional sentence was unfit given the gravity of the offence and the abuse of a position of authority.

The original sentence of incarceration was restored but stayed as the conditional sentence had already been served.