Gladue principles

The accused, Anessa Katapatuk, pleaded guilty to simple assault and uttering threats.

The Crown sought 12 months jail, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court, applying Gladue and Ipeelee principles, found that a conditional discharge with 12 months probation was appropriate, emphasizing the accused's reduced moral blameworthiness due to her traumatic Indigenous background and systemic factors.

The judge concluded that incarceration would be contrary to the public interest and the rehabilitative goals of sentencing for an Indigenous offender.

The appellant, Blake Robson, appealed a global sentence of five years' incarceration for drug trafficking and breach of a release order, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider his Métis heritage (Gladue factors).

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's analysis, noting that while the judge considered the principles from R. v. Kehoe and R. v. F.H.L. regarding the relevance of Indigenous heritage even if disconnected or not causally linked to the offence, there was no evidence on the record that systemic, background, or intergenerational factors related to the appellant's Indigenous heritage contributed to his involvement in the criminal justice system or impacted his moral blameworthiness.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Kadah Dematas, was found guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against two police officers.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his serious criminal record and the nature of the offences against law enforcement, and mitigating factors, such as his youth, efforts at rehabilitation, and Indigenous and racialized background (Morris and Gladue principles).

The court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 30 months, with significant pre-sentence custody credit, and ancillary orders including a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The defendant, Cody Moreau, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of Gladue principles.

The court found the Gladue principles inapplicable due to insufficient objective evidence of Indigenous ancestry or connection to an Indigenous community.

The offence involved extreme violence, a two-on-one attack, and stomping on a helpless victim, resulting in severe head injury.

Moreau had a prior conviction for assault causing bodily harm and was on probation at the time.

Despite mitigating factors such as a difficult upbringing, substance abuse issues, and efforts towards rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of 30 months imprisonment, along with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Richard Trudeau pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

The Crown sought the maximum jail sentence, while the defence argued for a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) due to the accused's Indigenous background and cognitive disability.

The court, applying Gladue principles and considering the victim's impact statement and the accused's personal circumstances, including his sincere remorse and commitment to sobriety, determined that an 18-month CSO followed by 24 months probation was appropriate.

The judge emphasized that incarceration would disproportionately harm the Indigenous offender and impede rehabilitation, aligning with the remedial purpose of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to break and enter, robbery, and disguise with intent, committed while serving a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including victim impact and a lengthy criminal record, but extensively applied Gladue principles.

The decision highlighted the accused's traumatic background, systemic failures, and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system.

Despite the Crown seeking a 5-year sentence, the judge imposed a 3-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing rehabilitation over general deterrence and denunciation, and strongly recommending an Indigenous healing lodge.

B.H. was sentenced for sexual assault, making child pornography (victim was his 16-year-old daughter), and careless storage of a firearm.

The court considered an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Supplementary Agreed Statement of Facts.

The victim impact statement highlighted the profound harm caused to the victim and her family.

The court applied sentencing principles under the Criminal Code, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and specifically addressed the impact of R. v. Friesen on sentences for child sexual offences.

The court also applied Gladue principles, acknowledging the defendant's Indigenous heritage and its intergenerational effects, which led to a reduction in the otherwise proportionate sentence.

A global sentence of seven years incarceration was imposed, along with several ancillary orders.

The appellant, William Green, appealed a 7-year sentence for manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by not adequately considering the appellant's non-contribution to significant pre-trial delays and by failing to apply the remedial purpose of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code regarding his Indigenous background.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced by a total of 12 months, resulting in a net sentence of 65 months.

Trevor Clarke pleaded guilty to manslaughter for punching Paul Tonna, who subsequently died from a head injury.

The Crown sought a sentence of seven to nine years' imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or conditional sentence.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, victim impact, and the offender's background, including his Indigenous heritage and significant rehabilitative efforts.

Applying Gladue principles, the court found that while denunciation and deterrence were primary, rehabilitation was a significant objective.

The court imposed a sentence of 28 months' imprisonment, reduced from 30 months due to harsh pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, followed by two years of probation.

A conditional sentence was deemed unavailable as a penitentiary sentence was required.

S.B. pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, involving over 40,000 images and 600 videos.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less one day incarceration.

The court considered the severity of the offence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives for child sexual abuse offences.

However, the court also gave significant weight to a Gladue report detailing the offender's background, including intergenerational trauma from his father's abuse in a provincially run school and the offender's own childhood abuse and neglect.

The judge found "exceptional circumstances" due to the offender's reduced moral blameworthiness and demonstrated rehabilitative efforts, including Indigenous-centered counselling and adult education.

Consequently, the court imposed a two-year less one-day conditional sentence, emphasizing the importance of supporting rehabilitation and avoiding the risk of undermining progress through incarceration.

The accused, Tony Gordon, pleaded guilty to choking while committing an assault and breach of probation.

The Crown and defence proposed a joint submission of 18 months jail, but the court found this too low, considering it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The judge imposed a total sentence of 3 years less a day, comprising 2 years less a day for the assault and a consecutive 1-year sentence for the breach of probation, after considering Gladue principles, the victim impact, and the accused's extensive criminal record.

Robert Cada, an Indigenous person, pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought an 8-year custodial sentence, while the defence argued for 4 years based on the parity principle with a non-Indigenous co-accused and factors related to Mr. Cada's Indigenous heritage.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of fentanyl and Mr. Cada's significant criminal record, and mitigating factors, such as his guilty plea and the impact of intergenerational trauma as outlined in his Gladue Report.

The court sentenced Mr. Cada to 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a forfeiture order.

The accused, Heath Johnston, pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and crystal methamphetamine, and possession of proceeds of crime, following his arrest with significant quantities of drugs and cash.

A Gladue Report and Pre-Sentence Report were prepared, highlighting his Indigenous background, intergenerational trauma, and personal struggles with addiction exacerbated by pandemic-related job loss.

The Crown sought a 6-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed 3.5 years.

The court applied Gladue principles, emphasizing the remedial purpose of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in custody.

Despite the seriousness of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the court found that a restorative approach through a conditional sentence was appropriate given the strong Gladue factors and the accused's rehabilitation efforts.

The accused, Gilbert Anishnabie, pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl and cocaine.

The sentencing hearing was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the accused's participation in a residential treatment program.

The court considered Gladue factors, a sentencing circle, and the accused's personal circumstances, including his Indigenous background, learning disability, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

Despite the Crown seeking a 4-year penitentiary sentence, the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found the facts distinguishable from other fentanyl trafficking cases, noting the offender's lack of knowledge regarding fentanyl and his low degree of responsibility.

A conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by two years probation, was imposed, emphasizing rehabilitation, denunciation, and deterrence, and addressing the systemic over-incarceration of Aboriginal people.

The appellant, Michael Laforme, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and sought leave to appeal his sentence of life imprisonment with a 16-year period of parole ineligibility.

The conviction appeal alleged errors in the trial judge's jury charge, specifically regarding the understanding of legal principles, fairness, balance, and warnings about post-offence conduct evidence.

The sentence appeal argued that the trial judge failed to give meaningful effect to Gladue principles, resulting in an unduly harsh sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge and affirming that the sentencing judge properly considered Gladue principles while balancing other relevant factors, including the brutality of the offence and the appellant's extensive criminal record.

The offender, Connor Madison, was found guilty of second-degree murder for the fatal stabbing of Stephon Knight-Roberts.

The court was tasked with determining the period of parole ineligibility, which is statutorily set at a minimum of 10 years for second-degree murder.

Considering the brutal and prolonged nature of the offence, the offender's armed presence despite recognizances, and the devastating impact on the victim's family, balanced against the offender's Indigenous background, difficult upbringing, mental health issues, and genuine remorse, the court fixed the parole ineligibility period at 13 years.

Shadoe G. Moore pleaded guilty to robbery while armed with an imitation handgun and using an imitation handgun during the commission of an indictable offence.

The court considered the interplay between ss. 85 and 343 of the Criminal Code, rejecting the "double-dipping" argument and affirming Parliament's intent for consecutive sentences.

The court also addressed the "step principle" in sentencing, rejecting its strict application for Indigenous offenders, and discussed the application of "Summers" and "Duncan" credit for pre-sentence custody conditions, particularly harsh due to lockdowns and COVID-19.

The judge applied Gladue principles, acknowledging the profound impact of intergenerational trauma and systemic factors on the offender's moral culpability.

A global sentence of three years was imposed, reduced by 338 days for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of two years and one month.

The defendant was convicted of two counts of causing an accident resulting in bodily harm while having a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation and general deterrence, and the severe, life-changing injuries sustained by the two victims.

Despite mitigating factors such as genuine remorse and rehabilitation efforts, the court found that an intermittent sentence was insufficient.

The final sentence was 15 months incarceration, three years probation, and a three-year driving prohibition, aligning with the Crown's recommendation due to the judge's self-imposed restriction on exceeding the Crown's position without further submissions.

The appellant, Brian Lariviere, appealed a 12-month imprisonment sentence for aggravated assault, use of an imitation firearm, breach of recognizance, and fentanyl possession, after receiving credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The appeal sought a reduction in sentence due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on detention conditions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding the original sentence fit and that general pandemic conditions, without unique personal vulnerability, did not justify a sentence reduction.

The appellant appealed his sentence of six years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, received after convictions for impaired driving, dangerous driving, failing to stop while pursued by police, and driving while disqualified.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to fully apply Gladue principles when considering his criminal record, suggesting previous sentences established an artificially high baseline.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the sentence, noting the trial judge carefully reviewed the Gladue report, considered systemic factors, and that the "step up" principle was not applied.

The paramount consideration was the protection of other road users.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of setting aside the victim surcharge; in all other respects, it was dismissed.