Gladue principles

The appellant, Noah King, appealed his convictions for 12 serious offences and a 7-year imprisonment sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of evidence.

However, the court found the 7-year sentence to be demonstrably unfit, noting the trial judge's unclear reasoning for the sentencing range despite properly identifying Gladue principles.

The sentence was reduced to 5 years' imprisonment, with specific reductions applied to various counts.

The appellant, designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to indeterminate imprisonment for sexual assault and other offences, appealed his sentence and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

He argued the trial judge erred in applying Gladue principles by requiring a causal link between his Indigenous ancestry and offending behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding it unreliable and insufficient to undermine the sentencing decision.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly applied Gladue principles, finding no direct link between the appellant's Indigenous background (discovered later in life) and his moral culpability, and that public protection remained the paramount objective justifying an indeterminate sentence.

This decision concerns the sentencing of an Indigenous offender, Evan Buswa, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges including theft, break and enter, and breaches of court orders, primarily involving the theft of donation and tip boxes.

The court considered significant mitigating factors such as the offender's Indigenous heritage, chronic homelessness, mental health challenges (schizophrenia), and substance addiction, applying Gladue principles.

Despite the Crown seeking a one-year jail sentence, the court emphasized the disproportionate impact of incarceration on vulnerable Indigenous individuals and the systemic factors contributing to their over-representation in the criminal justice system.

The judge ultimately imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, highlighting that jails are not a solution for issues rooted in poverty, mental health, and addiction.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, robbery with a firearm, and other offences after shooting a victim and stealing multiple vehicles.

Prior to sentencing, the offender applied for bail, proposing a residential surety and electronic monitoring.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the offender's history of fleeing, untreated addiction, and the severity of the offences justified detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence for armed robbery and wearing a disguise, arguing the sentencing judge erred in applying Gladue principles and that a new legal development (Sharma) made a conditional sentence available.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's application of Gladue principles and declined to impose a conditional sentence, affirming the original sentence.

However, due to the appellant's significant post-sentence rehabilitation, the court allowed the appeal for the limited purpose of permanently staying the execution of his remaining incarceration and substituted it with a two-year probation period, also imposing a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The applicant, having pleaded guilty to manslaughter, sought interim release pending sentencing.

The court considered the release plan, including electronic monitoring and cultural supports, against the applicant's lengthy criminal record, history of non-compliance, and the serious nature of the offence.

Despite the principles favouring release for Aboriginal accused and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court found that detention was justified on both secondary (public safety) and tertiary (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice) grounds.

The court endorsed previous findings that the applicant's history of re-offending and non-compliance outweighed the proposed supervision plan.

M.M. sought a bail review of a detention order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to COVID-19 and his underlying health conditions.

The applicant, charged with multiple drug trafficking and compliance offences, proposed a release plan with a surety (K.D.) and GPS monitoring.

The court accepted the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change but ultimately found the proposed surety unsuitable due to a shared history of drug addiction with the applicant, which jeopardized the applicant's sobriety and the plan's ability to mitigate secondary grounds risks.

The court also considered the strong Crown's case and the public's confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained on secondary and tertiary grounds.

This bail review application concerned David Firth, who was detained on multiple criminal charges.

Firth sought release, alleging errors in the initial bail decision and citing material changes in circumstances: the COVID-19 pandemic and the availability of a new, suitable surety.

The court found no errors of law in the Justice of the Peace's initial decision but accepted the new evidence as a material change, warranting a de novo bail hearing.

Considering Firth's Aboriginal heritage, the heightened risks of COVID-19 in detention, and the robust release plan proposed with a strong surety, the court determined that Firth had met his reverse onus on all three grounds for release.

Consequently, Firth was ordered released on a recognizance with a surety and strict conditions, including house arrest and counselling.

The accused sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, 48 years old with 84 prior convictions including breaches of recognizance and escapes, was found in possession of significant quantities of crystal methamphetamine, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and fentanyl, along with drug paraphernalia.

The court considered the strong Crown case, the accused's extensive criminal record, and the unsuitability of the proposed surety.

Despite potential trial delays due to the pandemic and the prospect of COVID-19 in detention, the court found continued detention necessary on the secondary ground due to the high risk of reoffending and lack of respect for court orders.

The bail review was dismissed.

The Crown applied to have the offender, R.R., declared a dangerous offender following convictions for two counts of sexual assault.

The defence sought a long-term offender designation.

The court considered R.R.'s extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assault convictions and uncharged allegations, a psychiatric assessment, and a Gladue report.

Applying the framework from R. v. Boutilier, the court found that while R.R. presented a risk of reoffending, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable," particularly considering his age, future incarceration, and the availability of new correctional programs.

Consequently, the court did not designate R.R. a dangerous offender but found him to be a long-term offender, imposing a further 33 months imprisonment and 10 years of long-term supervision with specific conditions.

The accused, a young man with no prior criminal record, was found guilty of possession of a prohibited firearm (a sawed-off semi-automatic rifle) with readily accessible ammunition, and possession of cocaine and marijuana.

The firearm and drugs were found hidden in his bedroom during a police search.

The court considered the sentencing principles, including the paramountcy of denunciation and general deterrence for serious firearm offences, while also giving significant weight to the accused's youth, disadvantaged background, and rehabilitative potential.

The court applied Gladue principles by analogy, acknowledging the impact of systemic racism on the accused's life.

A total sentence of 27 months imprisonment was imposed (24 months for the firearm offence, 3 months consecutive for cocaine possession, and 3 months concurrent for marijuana possession), reduced to an effective 18 months after 9 months credit for stringent pre-trial house arrest.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year/life weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

Ricci Abram, convicted of first-degree murder in 2005, applied for a "faint hope" hearing under s. 745.61 of the Criminal Code to reduce his parole ineligibility period.

The application required judicial screening for merit.

The court, applying the "reasonable prospect of success" standard due to Charter considerations (R. v. Dell), found that the applicant had demonstrated dramatic rehabilitative efforts, strong institutional support, and a deep connection to indigenous traditions.

Despite the brutal nature of the original offence and victim impact, the court balanced these factors with the applicant's significant personal growth and the relevance of Gladue principles.

The application for a jury hearing was granted.

The appellant, Ronald Contreras, appealed a sentence imposed for breach of probation.

The sentencing judge departed from a joint submission by adding a 12-month probation order with an absolute abstinence condition for alcohol and illegal substances.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's failure to defer to the joint submission, inadequate consideration of Gladue principles, insufficient opportunity for counsel to make submissions, and inadequate reasons for sentence.

The Superior Court found multiple errors in principle, including a lack of understanding of Gladue principles and the high threshold for rejecting joint submissions.

The appeal was allowed, and the probation order was deleted.

The respondent father brought a motion to change child support provisions, seeking to stay ongoing child support and section 7 expenses and to recalculate arrears based on his claimed inability to pay.

The father argued that Gladue principles should apply to the motion to change, citing his experiences as an Indigenous man and the impact of systemic inequalities on his ability to pay.

The court rejected the application of Gladue principles to child support motions but acknowledged the relevance of considering systemic factors affecting Indigenous persons.

The court found the father had not discharged his onus to establish a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in the imputed income of $30,000 per annum.

However, the court granted relief regarding section 7 expenses due to lack of disclosure and adjusted arrears accordingly.

Appeal from conviction for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, and from sentence of six months imprisonment.

The appellant, an Aboriginal offender, challenged the trial judge's credibility findings and the sentencing judge's failure to properly apply Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sexual assault conviction appeal, stayed the unlawful confinement conviction pursuant to the Kienapple principle, and found the sentencing judge erred by proceeding without adequate Gladue and pre-sentence reports addressing community-based sentencing alternatives.

The sentence appeal was reserved pending a supplementary pre-sentence report.

Following conviction for robbery while armed with a handgun and having face masked, the court imposed a sentence of three and a half years in penitentiary plus enhanced credit for pre-trial custody totaling approximately six years.

The court balanced serious aggravating factors including the use of a firearm in a public place, careful planning, and significant victim impact against mitigating factors including the offender's youth, Indigenous heritage, educational achievements, and future prospects.

The court applied Gladue principles while recognizing that denunciation and deterrence remain paramount for firearm-related offences.

An indigenous woman pleaded guilty to importing 347 grams of cocaine into Canada contrary to s. 6(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought a three-month custodial sentence in addition to time served, relying on principles of general deterrence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 24 months probation, finding that the offender's circumstances as an indigenous woman, combined with her significant personal trauma, systemic disadvantage, and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts, warranted a departure from the ordinary sentencing range.

The court applied the Gladue and Ipeelee framework, emphasizing that the Gladue principles apply to serious offences and that general deterrence cannot override the requirement to consider the unique circumstances of indigenous offenders.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault arising from a stabbing incident on January 27, 2012, where he stabbed his domestic partner three times and a bystander once.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender (indeterminate) designation.

The court found a clear pattern of repetitive violent behaviour spanning the offender's youth and adult criminal records.

The court designated the offender as a dangerous offender (determinate) rather than indeterminate, imposing a global sentence of seven years custody with a credit of 1,657 days for pre-sentence custody and an additional 90-day credit for harsh conditions of confinement, resulting in 810 days further custody.

A Long-Term Supervision Order for 10 years was imposed.

The court applied Gladue/Ipeelee principles throughout, recognizing the offender's traumatic background rooted in intergenerational residential school trauma, childhood abuse and neglect, and substance abuse issues.

An Aboriginal offender with a lengthy history of property crimes and breaches of court orders was sentenced in the Gladue court.

The offender had demonstrated a pattern of minor criminality spanning several months, committing thefts from businesses and repeatedly breaching probation and bail conditions.

Despite previous sentences including jail time, probation, and conditional sentences, the offender showed no signs of rehabilitation or deterrence.

The court imposed a 14-month conditional sentence to be served in the community, emphasizing the application of Gladue principles while balancing public protection and the need for accountability.

The offender subsequently breached the conditional sentence but later voluntarily requested incarceration to access mental health treatment at a specialized facility.

The accused pleaded guilty to the kidnapping and sexual assault of two young children in Big Trout Lake, Ontario.

The offences occurred on September 26, 2012, when the accused, in a state of emotional distress following a relationship breakdown, lured four children to his trailer, locked one in the bathroom, and sexually assaulted two young girls both digitally and with his penis, causing significant physical and emotional harm.

The accused was sentenced to six years imprisonment for kidnapping with three years consecutive for sexual assault and three years concurrent for sexual touching, with a lifetime SOIRA order, DNA order, and lifetime weapons prohibition.