View source for Sentencing Factors Relating to the Criminal Proceedings

{{Currency|January 2021}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPrinciples}}
==General Principles==
{{seealso|Sentencing Factors Relating to the Offender|Sentencing Factors Relating to the Offence}}

=== Guilty Plea ===
A guilty plea is a major mitigating factor.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Holder|1wd0k|1998 CanLII 14962 (ONSC)|21 CR (5th) 277 (Ont. SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}} at 281-2<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Beier|6jlk|1995 CanLII 681 (ON CA)|[1995] OJ No 2552 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|6jlk|2}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sawchyn|fp6pw|1981 ABCA 173 (CanLII)|60 CCC (2d) 200}}{{perABCA|Laycraft JA}} at 210
</ref>

; Reasons for Mitigation
A guilty plea is a mitigating factor in a number of respects:
*it is evidence of remorse <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Gardiner|1lpcq|1982 CanLII 30 (SCC)|[1982] 2 SCR 368}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (4:3)<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Fegan|g16wp|1993 CanLII 8607 (ON CA)|80 CCC (3d) 356}}{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} (3:0) at 360–61, 13 OR (3d) 88<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ticne|23cts|2009 BCCA 191 (CanLII)|269 BCAC 308}}{{perBCCA|Mackenzie JA}} (2:1){{atL|23cts|23}} (“In MacMillan Bloedel v Brown (1994), ... , Chief Justice McEachern, in recognizing that a guilty plea will generally be deserving of some credit, noted that such a plea not only obviates the need for a trial, but also saves the public the expense associated with taking a matter to trial: at 165, 166.  It has also been recognized that a guilty plea can be indicative of remorse, and of the fact that the offender takes responsibility for his or her actions”)<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Wisniewski|, (1975) 29 CRNS 342 (Ont.)}}</ref>, 
* it is a sign of greater chance at rehabilitation.<ref>
{{supra1|Holder}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Randhawa|1v965|2007 BCCA 598 (CanLII)|249 BCAC 87}}{{perBCCA|Hall JA}}{{atL|1v965|7}}<br>
</ref>
* it saves the justice system resources where a trial is not needed<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Johnson and Tremayne|, [1970] 4 CCC 64}}{{perONCA|Gale CJ}} at 67<br>
{{ibid1|Randhawa}}{{atL|1v965|7}}<br>
{{supra1|Ticne}}{{atL|23cts|23}}<br>

</ref>  
* it excuses victims from the stress of having to testify and reliving the horrors of the events;<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Faulds et al., et al.|6k6m|1994 CanLII 770 (ON CA)|20 OR (3d) 13}}{{TheCourtONCA}} (3:0){{atp|17}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Santos (J.)|, 67 OAC 270 (CA)}} at 270-271<br>
{{supra1|Randhawa}}{{atL|1v965|7}}</ref>
* it spares victims and their family from the uncertainty of a trial.<ref>
{{supra1|Randhawa}}{{atL|1v965|7}}<br>
{{supra1|Ticne}}{{atL|23cts|23}}<br>
</ref>

Frequently a guilty plea is a product of negotiations with the Crown where another charge may be withdrawn or a lighter recommendation will be made in exchange for the guilty plea.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Roberts|6gmz|1998 CanLII 2643 (ON CA)|[1998] OJ No 461 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|6gmz|6}}</ref>

; Not Guaranteed Mitigation
The offender is not entitled to a sentence reduction simply for pleading guilty but rather it is within the discretion of the judge to account for a guilty plea in sentencing. 

It does not require a "set standard of mitigation".<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|FHL|hq2qs|2018 ONCA 83 (CanLII)|360 CCC (3d) 189}}{{perONCA|Epstein JA}} (3:0){{atL|hq2qs|22}}
</ref>
The effect on sentence will vary depending on the circumstances.<ref>
{{supra1|Holder}}<br>
{{supra1|Faulds}} at 14 and 17 ("[t]he effect of a guilty plea in setting the appropriate sentence will vary with the circumstances of each case. In some cases, a guilty plea is a demonstration of remorse and a positive first step towards rehabilitation. In other cases, a guilty plea is simply a recognition of the inevitable")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Lake|1x15g|2008 ABCA 204 (CanLII)|429 AR 398}}{{perABCA|Watson JA}}{{atL|1x15g|12}} (“its significance as [a mitigating] factor is variable”)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Carreira|gl89d|2015 ONCA 639 (CanLII)|337 OAC 396}}{{perONCA|Epstein JA}}{{atL|gl89d|15}}<Br>
</ref>

; Mitigation Not Fixed Amount
The amount of credit given for a guilty plea it not fixed as it can mitigate in several different ways. It has been suggested however that it can often lead to a reduction of sentence by one-third.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Conlon|fmzb0|2011 ABPC 259 (CanLII)|517 AR 365}}{{perABPC|Daniel J}}
</ref>

; Inevitable Conviction
The sentencing judge can consider whether the guilty plea was simply "a recognition of the inevitable" as revealed by the absence of a defence to the charges or compelling and uncontradicted evidence.<ref>
{{supra1|FHL}}{{atsL|hq2qs|22| to 23}}<br>
</ref>

; Testimony at Sentencing
Where the victim still is forced to testify at the sentencing, the mitigation should not be based on conservation of judicial resources or giving a degree of finality to the complainant.<ref>
{{supra1|FHL}}{{atL|hq2qs|23}} ("the appellant chose to test the Crown’s evidence relating to the more aggravating aspects of his case. As a result, [the victim] was made to relive the assaults in her testimony and to undergo cross-examination designed to impugn her credibility. The guilty plea, therefore, did not conserve judicial resources or provide a degree of finality to the complainant.")<Br>
</ref>

Mitigation is not attenuated simply because the victim had to testify at the sentencing and it does not change that there was as acceptance of responsibility and the value of demonstrated remorse.<REf>
R v Alcorn 2021 NSC 75 at para 38{{fix}}
</ref>

The value of guilty plea does not require admission of aggravating factors. It is assessed on the facts of the case.<ref>
{{ibid1|Alcorn}} at para 38
</ref>

; Offer of Lesser Plea
The mere offer to plead to a lesser included offence does not amount to a factor of mitigation.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Shyback|hvhg1|2018 ABCA 331 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{AtL|hvhg1|26}} (“the law is clear that it is not mitigating for an accused to offer to plead guilty to a lesser included offence if the accused is ultimately convicted of the offence as charged. So, for example, an offer by an accused charged with second degree murder to plead guilty to manslaughter is not mitigating if the accused is subsequently convicted of second degree murder:...")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ryan|gl1sz|2015 ABCA 286 (CanLII)|607 AR 47}}{{perABCA|Picard JA}}{{AtsL|gl1sz|28| to 33}}<br>
</ref>

; Timing of Plea
The timing of a guilty plea is important. An early guilty plea generally deserves "considerable weight" in sentencing.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Patterson|6gr2|1998 CanLII 2154 (ON CA)|[1998] OJ No 937 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|6gr2|1}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Pitkeathly|6k0z|1994 CanLII 222 (ON CA)|29 CR (4th) 182}}{{TheCourtONCA}} at 184-5<br>
{{CanLIIRP|T(R)|1p793|1992 CanLII 2834 (ON CA)|17 CR (4th) 247}}{{perONCA|Doherty JA}} at 263 <br>
</ref> 
It may entitle the accused to "substantial credit" in sentence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Mann|29njl|2010 ONCA 342 (CanLII)|261 OAC 379}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}} (3:0){{atL|29njl|21}}<br>
</ref>

A guilty plea during trial may still deserve mitigation on sentence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Garofoli et al.|22kn2|1988 CanLII 3270 (ON CA)|41 CCC (3d) 97}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}} at 153 aff'd on other issue at [http://canlii.ca/t/1fss5 1990 CanLII 52] (SCC){{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}<br>
</ref>

; Lack of Guilty Plea Not Aggravating
A lack of guilty plea is not an aggravating factor. However, related to a lack of a guilty plea, if the accused was convicted after trial where testimony of the accused was determined to be false, the judge may consider that as aggravating.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Vickers|1wmcl|1998 CanLII 14982 (BC CA)|105 BCAC 42}}{{perBCCA|Esson JA}} (3:0)</ref> 

{{reflist|2}}

===Conduct During Trial===

Though not the same as a guilty plea, the making of admissions during trial can be considered as a mitigating factor.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Davis|ftvp0|2012 ONSC 6486 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Spies J}}{{atL|ftvp0|34}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|White|21hzx|2008 CanLII 58421 (ONSC)|[2008] OJ No 4511 (ONSC)}}{{perONSC|Spies J}}{{atL|21hzx|21}} ("Although not the same as a guilty pleas, I do find these significant admissions are a mitigating factor"<Br>
</ref>

A finding that the accused lied in his testimony cannot be used as an aggravating factor to sentence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bradley|1w2bf|2008 ONCA 179 (CanLII)|[2008] OJ No 955}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|1w2bf|15| and 16}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Kozy|1p78m|1990 CanLII 2625 (ON CA)|[1990] OJ No 1586 (CA)}}{{perONCA|Carthy JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Bani-Naiem|28wk5|2010 ONSC 1890 (CanLII)|[2010] OJ No 1234}}{{perONSC|MacDonnell J}}{{atL|28wk5|13}}<br>
</ref>
However, it can be used to establish that the accused has "demonstrate[d] a lack of insight into the gravity and seriousness of his crimes".<Ref>
{{ibid1|Bani-Naiem}}{{atL|28wk5|13}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Strict Bail Conditions===
{{seealso|Strict Bail Conditions Credit|Remand Credit}}

===Delay===
Delay between the date of the offence and sentence is not usually a reason for mitigation. If the delay is due to flight of the accused from the jurisdiction he is not entitled to any benefit from the passage of time. <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jansons|21jrg|2008 YKCA 15 (CanLII)|260 BCAC 254}}{{perYKCA|Kirkpatrick JA}}<br>
</ref>

Where the breach of s. 11(b) rights to a trial in a reasonable time is insufficient to warrant a stay of proceedings, the delay can still be a mitigating factor on sentence in limited circumstances.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|McAulay|2dkzx|1987 ABCA 44 (CanLII)|78 AR 142}}{{perABCA|Kerans JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bosley|1p797|1992 CanLII 2838 (ON CA)|18 CR (4th) 347}}{{perONCA|Doherty JA}}{{atp|358}} ("... excessive delay which causes prolonged uncertainty for the appellant but does not reach constitutional limits can be taken into consideration as a factor in mitigation of sentence")<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Leaver|232cf|1996 CanLII 10223 (ON CA)|3 CR (5th) 138 (ONCA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Dwyer|, [2000] OJ 3598 (ONSC)}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Spencer|1bsmz|2003 CanLII 36890 (ONSC)|[2003] OJ 10 (ONSC)}}{{perONSC|Mossip J}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRx|Morris|hs1vh|2018 BCSC 803 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Sharma J}}{{atsL|hs1vh|35| to 39}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Volk|hr30b|2018 BCPC 58 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Koturbash J}}{{atL|hr30b|27}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Schertzer|gh86h|2015 ONCA 259 (CanLII)|325 CCC (3d) 202}}{{perONCA|Benotto JA}}{{atL|gh86h|129}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Legerton|ghc86|2015 ABQB 268 (CanLII)|604 AR 373}}{{perABQB|Yamauchi J}}{{atL|ghc86|69}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|TMB|fzs69|2013 ONSC 4019 (CanLII)|299 CCC (3d) 493}}{{perONSC|Code J}}{{atL|fzs69|74}} (“ It is settled law that delays in trial proceedings and delays during the appeal period, although within constitutional norms, can have a mitigating effect on sentence.  ... .  The substantial delays in this case have undoubtedly caused ongoing uncertainty for B. and, equally significantly, if he was now to serve an eight month custodial sentence and likely lose his job, at age 59, there would be additional hardship in attempting to re-enter the job market at age 60.“)<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sheng|29fhw|2010 ONCA 296 (CanLII)|254 CCC (3d) 153}}{{perONCA|Laskin JA}}{{atL|29fhw|60}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Viccars|2d70k|2010 ABPC 351 (CanLII)|DTC 5184}}{{perABPC|Fradsham J}}{{atL|2d70k|62}}<Br>
[[Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time]]<Br>
</ref> 
This will also apply to circumstances where delay is caused by appeal.<ref>
{{supra1|TMB}}{{AtsL|fzs69|73| to 75}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Williams|, 2009 244 CCC (3d) 153}}{{ats-|29 to 32}}<Br>
{{supra1|Sheng}}{{AtL|29fhw|60}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Boucher|1hd0d|2004 CanLII 17719 (ON CA)|186 CCC (3d) 479}}{{perONCA|Simmons JA}}{{atL|1hd0d|33}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Symes|g95bh|1989 CanLII 7173 (ON CA)|49 CCC (3d) 81}}{{perONCA|Goodman JA}}{{atsL|g95bh|96| to 97}}<Br>   
</ref>

Courts are reluctant to give sentence credit on this bais, however.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Glykis|6jmc|1995 CanLII 1277 (ON CA)|, 41 CR (4th) 310 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|Dubin CJ}} (3:0)<Br>
</ref>

Dated offences, such as historical [[Sexual Assault (Offence)|sexual assault]], do not warrant a significant reduction on penalty simply due to the time that has passed since the offence as the magnitude of the offence and degree of culpability remains the same.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Archibald|frv7l|2012 ABCA 202 (CanLII)|557 WAC 188}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0) {{atL|frv7l|13}}
</ref>

On serious offences, the passage of time between the offence and sentence does not reduce the need for denunciation or deterrence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Partridge|1m6lq|2005 NSCA 159 (CanLII)|206 CCC (3d) 87}}{{perNSCA-H|Bateman JA}} (3:0)</ref>

Other factors in delay to consider include:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Critton|1cl4t|2002 CanLII 3240 (ONSC)|[2002] OJ No 2594 (ONSC)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atL|1cl4t|76}}</ref>
# the effect of delay on sentencing is a case‑specific inquiry
# deliberate acts to evade detection by the authorities, whether flight or contribution to delayed complaint tend to weigh against assigning mitigating impact to the fact of delay
# reform and rehabilitation during the intervening period tend to eliminate the prospect of recidivism and to nullify the need for specific deterrence to be reflected in the court's disposition
# certain very serious crimes require sentences with measures of general deterrence and denunciation regardless of the offender's lengthy crime‑free existence subsequent to the crime(s)
# objectively speaking, taking into account delay, the court's disposition should not be seen as a reward or benefit eliminating or depreciating the concept of proportionate punishment.

{{reflist|2}}

===Pre-trial Custody===
{{seealso|Remand Credit}}
{{quotation3|
719<br>
{{removed|(1) and (2)}}
; Determination of sentence
(3) In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence but the court shall limit any credit for that time to a maximum of one day for each day spent in custody.<br>

; Exception
(3.1) Despite subsection (3) {{AnnSec7|719(3)}}, if the circumstances justify it, the maximum is one and one-half days for each day spent in custody.

; Reasons
(3.2) The court shall give reasons for any credit granted and shall cause those reasons to be stated in the record.
<br>
{{removed|(3.3), (3.4), (4), (5) and (6)}}
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 719; 
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 157; 
{{LegHistory90s|1995, c. 22}}, s. 6;
 {{LegHistory00s|2009, c. 29}}, s. 3; 
{{LegHistory10s|2018, c. 29}}, s. 66.
{{Annotation}}
|{{CCCSec2|719}}
|{{NoteUp|719|3|3.1|3.2}}
|{{Terms-
|[[Criminal_Courts#Sentencing_Courts|"court" (s. 716)]]
}}
}}

Section 719(3.1)&mdash;as it existed prior to December 2018&mdash;consists of amendments from 2010 where the practice of giving 2:1 credits was significantly limited. Certain judges have given 1.5:1 credit where warranted for loss of remission.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Johnson|2fwtz|2011 ONCJ 77 (CanLII)|268 CCC (3d) 423}}{{perONCJ|M Green J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Dann|fl7lk|2011 NSPC 22 (CanLII)}}{{perNSPC|Derrick J}}
</ref>

The judge cannot deny pre-trial custody credit to a sentence simply because of the nature his record.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Crawford|2ct0w|2010 ABCA 290 (CanLII)|490 AR 148}}{{perABCA|Rowbotham JA}} (3:0)</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Pre-Trial Publicity===
It is an error of law to "rely on pretrial publicity to determine whether the need for general deterrence has been satisfied".<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Joseph|jbp79|2020 ONCA 733 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|jbp79|115| to 122}}
</ref>

Courts should exercise caution against permitting "publicity to substitute for punishment".<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Eliasson|jfzvn|2021 ABCA 188 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|jfzvn|19}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Zentner|ftv8p|2012 ABCA 332 (CanLII)|294 CCC (3d) 174}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|ftv8p|49}}<Br>
</ref>
However, publicity does constitute a "collateral consequence" and so are relevant in determining an "individualized" sentence.<Ref>
{{supra1|Eliasson}}{{AtL|jfzvn|19}} ("the adverse effects of publicity are a "collateral consequence" as defined in Suter and are relevant, if at all, in determining how the individual circumstances of the offence and the offender affect the appropriate "individualized" sentence")<br>
</ref>
But where the consequence is "inevitable", the mitigation is "greatly diminished".<Ref>
{{supra1|Eliasson}}{{AtL|jfzvn|19}} ("As a matter of principle, the mitigating force of collateral circumstances that are "almost inevitable" is "greatly diminished"")<br>
{{supra1|Joseph}}{{AtL|jbp79|133}}<Br>
Suter at para 49<br>
{{supra1|Zentner}} at para 43
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}

===Civil Liability===

Where the offender is likely to face substantial civil liability and he is not otherwise impecunious, then this should be a factor in sentence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Stone|4z2g|2001 BCCA 728 (CanLII)|20 MVR (4th) 177}}{{perBCCA|Mackenzie JA}} (3:0){{atsL|4z2g|32| to 35}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sadler|25j6c|2009 BCCA 386 (CanLII)|274 BCAC 308}}{{TheCourtBCCA}} (3:0){{atsL|25j6c|23| to 29}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}