Hybrid Offences And Sentencing Options
HYBRID OFFENCES & SENTENCING OPTIONS (CANADIAN CRIMINAL LAW)
(Also called “dual-procedure” or “dual-mode” offences.)
1. What Are Hybrid Offences?
A hybrid offence is an offence for which the Crown may elect to proceed either:
Summarily, or
By indictment.
The offence itself is neither strictly summary nor indictable until the Crown elects.
Hybrid offences make up the majority of offences in the Criminal Code.
Statutory Basis
There is no single section defining “hybrid offence,” but the Code uses language such as:
“Every person who commits an offence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to … OR guilty of a summary conviction offence.”
Key Legal Consequences
| Issue | Summary Election | Indictment Election |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Penalty | Typically up to 2 years less a day in jail + $5,000 fine | Penalty specified in Code, often much higher |
| Limitation Period | 12-month limitation applies | No limitation period |
| Mode of Trial | Always provincial court | Could be judge alone or judge + jury for serious matters (though hybrid offences generally are minor-to-moderate) |
| Ancillary Orders may differ | Some orders available only on indictment | All orders available |
Case Law: Crown’s Election
R v. Dudley (2009 ONCA 442)
Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that hybrid offences are indictable by default until the Crown elects. Prior to election, procedural rights are based on indictable status.
R v. S.J.L., 2009 SCC 14
The Supreme Court held that the procedural consequences of hybrid offences depend on the Crown’s election, but the offence remains indictable in nature for certain constitutional purposes.
2. Purpose of Hybrid Offences
Hybridization allows for:
Prosecutorial flexibility – Crown can choose based on seriousness, public interest, criminal history.
Efficient court management – Minor cases can be processed summarily.
Proportional sentencing – The same offence can accommodate a wide range of conduct.
Case Law: Factors in Crown Election
R v. Cook, [1998] 2 SCR 597
The Crown’s election is part of prosecutorial discretion and is only reviewable for abuse of process.
3. Sentencing Options for Hybrid Offences
Once convicted, sentencing is determined by:
the Crown’s election,
the particular offence’s statutory sentencing range,
and the standard sentencing principles in ss. 718–718.2 Criminal Code.
A. If Proceeded With Summarily
Typical maximums (after 2019 amendments):
Up to 2 years less a day imprisonment
Up to $5,000 fine for individuals
Probation (up to 2 years)
Conditional sentence NOT available (CSOs cannot be given for summary offences unless specifically authorized)
Restitution
Ancillary orders (weapons prohibition, driving prohibitions, etc.)
Case Illustration
R v. Pontes, [1995] 3 SCR 44 confirms that summary offences follow their own statutory limitation and procedural frameworks strictly.
B. If Proceeded With by Indictment
Indictable sentencing options are much broader:
Imprisonment up to the statutory maximum (varies by offence)
Fines (no statutory cap unless specified)
Intermittent sentences (for terms ≤ 90 days)
Conditional sentence (CSO) — if permitted for that offence
Suspended sentence with probation
Discharges (absolute or conditional)
Ancillary orders, including long-term supervision or weapon prohibitions
Case Law: Proportionality & Hybrid Offences
R v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64
Sentencing for hybrid offences still requires strict adherence to proportionality, the fundamental principle under s. 718.1.
R v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5
Clarified availability and purpose of conditional sentences, which may apply to hybrid offences if the Crown proceeds indictably and statutory exclusions don’t apply.
4. Examples of Common Hybrid Offences
Assault (s. 266)
Assault causing bodily harm (s. 267(b))
Theft under $5,000 (s. 334(b))
Fraud under $5,000 (s. 380(1)(b))
Impaired driving (s. 320.14)
Uttering threats (s. 264.1)
Mischief (s. 430)
Case Example – Assault (Hybrid)
R v. Cyr, 2012 SKCA 31
Court highlighted how hybridization allows the Crown to treat minor assaults summarily while proceeding indictably for assaults with greater harm or prior records.
5. Constitutional Issues Related to Hybrid Offences
A. Presumption of Indictability
As noted in R v. Dudley and R v. S.J.L., hybrid offences are indictable before election, which affects arrest powers and procedural safeguards.
B. Charter Implications
R v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 – Time limits differ between summary and indictable offences, and the Crown’s election can affect whether delay is unreasonable.
6. Practical Exam/Essay Points
When discussing hybrid offences in a legal analysis:
Define the hybrid nature.
Identify the significance: elected mode determines procedure and sentencing.
Apply sentencing principles (s. 718–718.2) regardless of election.
Discuss prosecutorial discretion (Cook; Krieger).
Reference the presumption of indictability (Dudley; S.J.L.).
Explain how hybridization supports proportionality and efficiency.
RELATED Blog
0 comments