Don L.J. Rusnak

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed following guilty pleas to two counts of breach of probation contrary to s. 733 of the Criminal Code.

At sentencing, the Crown and defence made a joint submission for a one‑day concurrent sentence accounting for time served, but the trial judge rejected the joint submission and imposed a 14‑month conditional sentence order with fines.

The appeal court held that the sentencing judge failed to apply the established high threshold required to reject a joint submission and did not provide sufficient reasons demonstrating that the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or be contrary to the public interest.

The judge also failed to give counsel an opportunity to address the rejection of the joint submission.

The sentence was set aside and replaced with the jointly proposed disposition.

The accused, an Aboriginal woman from Long Lake 58 First Nation, pleaded guilty to trafficking marijuana to three children aged 11 to 14 years.

She was bound by a conditional sentence order at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought six to nine months imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence of six months.

The court imposed four months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation with conditions including abstinence from controlled substances and participation in rehabilitative programs.

A ten-year firearms prohibition was also imposed.

The court balanced the serious nature of trafficking to children with Gladue factors reflecting the accused's history of abuse, neglect, and systemic disadvantage.

The accused brought an application under s. 520 of the Criminal Code seeking review of a detention order made on the secondary ground following charges of assault with a weapon and uttering threats against his spouse.

The defence argued that the justice of the peace misapprehended the evidence relating to the accused’s mental health and that a material change in circumstances existed due to increased surety pledges and the addition of another surety.

The court held that the justice of the peace properly relied on the accused’s own admissions regarding depression, anger issues, and substance abuse when assessing risk to the complainant.

The proposed financial pledges and additional surety did not constitute a material change addressing the underlying concerns about mental health and substance abuse.

The detention review application was dismissed.