The appellant appealed a six‑month custodial sentence imposed after pleading guilty to possession of unstamped tobacco under the Excise Act and possession of tobacco while not permitted under the Tobacco Tax Act.
He argued the sentence was demonstrably unfit, violated the parity principle, and that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider a conditional sentence under s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code.
The court rejected arguments that the jail term was disproportionate or inconsistent with parity, noting the seriousness of tobacco smuggling and the prevalence of custodial sentences in the region.
However, the sentencing judge erred in principle by focusing solely on parity when assessing the availability of a conditional sentence and failing to comprehensively consider the objectives and principles of sentencing under ss. 718–718.2.
The appellate court intervened and concluded that a conditional sentence served in the community with stringent conditions could adequately achieve denunciation and deterrence.
