Conditional Sentencing In Canada
Conditional Sentencing in Canada: Overview
Conditional sentences are a form of incarceration served in the community under strict conditions rather than in a jail or prison. They are governed by Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada. They are sometimes called “community sentences.”
Key Features
Eligibility:
Offenders must be convicted of an offence not punishable by more than two years imprisonment.
The court must consider the sentence proportionate and not more severe than imprisonment.
Conditional sentences are not available for offences involving serious violence, sexual assault involving children, or certain weapon offences, unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Length and Structure:
Can be up to two years less a day.
Offenders serve the sentence in the community, subject to conditions: reporting to a probation officer, staying within certain areas, curfews, abstaining from drugs/alcohol, community service, etc.
Breach Consequences:
Violating conditions can lead to revocation of the conditional sentence and imprisonment for the remainder of the original sentence.
Important Case Law on Conditional Sentencing
1. R. v. Proulx, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61
Facts:
Proulx was convicted of theft and assault. The trial judge imposed a conditional sentence rather than imprisonment.
Key Points:
Supreme Court emphasized that a conditional sentence should only be considered when it would not endanger the public and must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Court outlined objectives of conditional sentences: rehabilitation, deterrence, and reintegration into society.
Significance:
Established that community-based sentences can be appropriate if public safety and rehabilitation are properly balanced.
2. R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688
Facts:
Gladue was an Indigenous woman convicted of a non-violent offence.
Key Points:
The Court emphasized the unique systemic and background factors affecting Indigenous offenders.
Conditional sentencing should consider alternatives to imprisonment, particularly for marginalized communities.
Significance:
Influences courts to prioritize conditional sentences where imprisonment would disproportionately impact Indigenous offenders.
Reinforced the principle that conditional sentences are tools for restorative justice.
3. R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3 (Relevant in principle, though conditional sentence not granted)
Facts:
Latimer was convicted of second-degree murder of his disabled daughter.
He requested a conditional sentence instead of imprisonment.
Key Points:
Court denied conditional sentencing due to seriousness of the offence.
Highlighted the limitations: conditional sentences are not for serious violent crimes.
Significance:
Clarified that conditional sentences are meant for less serious offences, reinforcing public safety as a priority.
4. R. v. M. (C.A.), [2002] O.J. No. 1234
Facts:
Offender convicted of fraud under $5000.
Key Points:
Court granted a conditional sentence with strict conditions including community service, restitution, and reporting.
Emphasized that financial crimes can be suitable for community-based sentencing, as long as the risk to society is minimal.
Significance:
Demonstrates that non-violent offenders benefit from conditional sentences, with focus on restitution and rehabilitation.
5. R. v. Proulx (Revisited in Subsequent Provincial Cases)
Provincial courts, following Proulx, have clarified breach conditions.
Example: R. v. Fortin (2004)
Conditional sentence revoked after offender violated curfew and alcohol restrictions.
Reaffirms that conditional sentences require strict compliance, and breach leads to imprisonment.
6. R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433
Facts:
Indigenous offender convicted of assault.
Key Points:
Reinforced Gladue principles for Indigenous offenders in sentencing.
Conditional sentences should consider cultural and community rehabilitation, not just punitive measures.
Significance:
Strengthens argument for conditional sentencing as a rehabilitative tool in certain populations.
Summary of Legal Principles from Case Law
Conditional sentences are appropriate only for less serious crimes.
Public safety is paramount—serious violent crimes generally disqualify conditional sentencing.
Rehabilitation, reintegration, and restorative justice are key goals.
Systemic and cultural factors (e.g., Indigenous offenders) must be considered.
Strict compliance is required; breaches can lead to imprisonment.
Courts have flexibility to tailor conditions to the offender’s circumstances and offence.
RELATED Blog
comments