The appellant pleaded guilty to three offences, including two hybrid offences where the Crown elected to proceed summarily.
He received the maximum six-month sentence for each hybrid offence.
The appellant appealed, arguing the maximum sentence could only be imposed on the 'worst offender committing the worst offence'.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, confirming that the 'worst offender, worst offence' principle no longer constrains the imposition of a maximum sentence where it is otherwise appropriate under the sentencing principles in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, particularly proportionality.
