The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for theft, seeking to introduce fresh evidence that the respondent had committed new fraud offences while awaiting sentencing.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the fresh evidence was inadmissible because the Crown failed to exercise due diligence in adducing it at the sentencing hearing.
The Court also discussed the admissibility of uncharged offences at sentencing, with the majority holding that such evidence must comply with the procedural safeguards in section 725 of the Criminal Code.
