The appellant appealed a 14‑day custodial sentence imposed following a conviction for impaired driving.
The appellate court held that the sentencing judge committed several errors in principle, including failing to properly consider the sentencing principles of proportionality and parity under ss. 718.1 and 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code, rejecting comparable case law without analysis, relying on statistical data independently obtained without notice to counsel, and improperly criticizing the offender for obtaining employment prior to sentencing when denying an intermittent sentence.
These errors undermined the fairness and reliability of the sentencing process.
The custodial sentence was set aside and replaced with a fine, probation with conditions, and a driving prohibition.
