The appellant, Michael Westcott, appealed his sentence on the basis that it significantly exceeded the sentence requested by the Crown.
The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to provide adequate notice that she was considering a sentence higher than the Crown’s request, as required by R. v. Nahanee.
However, the Court found no error in principle in the judge’s application of the totality principle or her consideration of harsh pretrial custody conditions.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court clarifying the distinction between joint submissions and contested sentencing hearings.
