Parity Principle

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed August 2023. (Rev. # 95319)

• < Sentencing
• < Purposes, Principles and Factors

General Principles

The parity principle means that a sentence should be "similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances". Section 718.2 states that :

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

[omitted (a)]

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

[omitted (c), (d) and (e)]

1995, c. 22, s. 6; 1997, c. 23, s. 17; 2000, c. 12, s. 95; 2001, c. 32, s. 44(F), c. 41, s. 20; 2005, c. 32, s. 25; 2012, c. 29, s. 2; 2015, c. 13, s. 24, c. 23, s. 16; 2017, c. 13, s. 4; 2019, c. 25, s. 293.
[annotation(s) added]

– CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)

---

Given the subjective nature of the sentencing process it is necessary that all sentences "must respect the parity principle."

Offenders being sentenced to the same or similar offence should not have disparate sentences. The sentences should be approximately the same, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors unique to the individual.

Parity does not mean uniformity and should not reduce the focus on the need for proportionality.

The search for matching precedent is an exercise of "limited" utility.

To fulfil this requirement, sentencing judges must consider the "range" of sentences of "similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances."

The judge is not required to apply the parity principle with respect to the co-accused where he is not provided with necessary information to undertake a meaningful comparison.

It has been suggested that precedent should not be treated as binding. They can "inform" a sentence bu are merely "historical statements" of penalties.

Purpose of Parity

The purpose of the parity principle is to ensure fairness "by avoiding disproportionate sentences among convicted persons where, essentially, the same facts and circumstances indicate equivalent or like sentences." It does not, however override the individualized approach to sentencing.

The purpose is not to match sentences perfectly, but rather should advance fairness.

Parity promotes "consistency, fairness, and rationality" in sentencing.

It also "gives meaning to proportionality."

Parity Does Not Trump Proportionality

The parity principle "does not preclude disparity where warranted by the circumstances, because of the principle of proportionality." The principle of parity is "secondary to the fundamental principle of proportionality."

It is inappropriate to let the parity principle to "dominate the determination of a fit sentence."

Parity and Individualization of Sentence

The parity principle is complementary to the individualization of the sentencing process. Where a sentence must be tailored to the individual, circumstances that are similar should be treated similarly, while dissimilar cases case justifiably be treated differently.

Court of Appeal Sets Range

One of the goals of the provincial courts of appeal is to maintain parity in sentence and minimize the differences in sentencing approaches. However, the judges must also be sensitive to the needs of local community.

Duty to Keep With Precedent

A judge has a responsibility to "impose sentences in line with precedent, noting always that for each offence and each offender some elements are unique."

It has been suggested that courts have a duty "to impose sentences in line with precedent" while still taking into account the uniqueness of the offender and offence.

Mandatory Minimums

Increases in minimum sentences will have the effect of "shifting" or "inflating" the range of appropriate sentence. This is not considered a violation of the parity rule.

Deviations from Range Must be Justified

A judge is permitted to deviate from the range where it is permitted in accordance with the principles and objectives of sentencing.

Where the judge deviates from the regular range established by case law the judge "should explain how it is in accordance with the principles and objectives and objectives of sentencing."

No Such Thing as a Single Appropriate Sentence

Given the individualized process of sentencing, "the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction."

Appellate Review

In certain cases a failure to conduct a parity analysis may be a legal error.

Ranges of Sentence

One of the roles of appellate courts is in "maintaining some degree of uniformity in the sentences imposed for crimes of the same general character" by setting direction of appropriate sentences.

A Court referring to a "range" of sentence can be interpreted in multiples ways. It its descriptive sense, considering a range of sentence is simply a "check" to ensure that the sentence is not unduly harsh or lenient when compared against other cases. It "reflects individual cases, but does not govern them."

In a prescriptive sense, a range is set by an appellate court to instruct lower courts on the "appropriate penalty for a category of crime."

When a range is defined prescriptively, care should be taken as problems may arise in defining the parameters.

Regardless of the sense, ranges are considered "guidelines" and not "hard and fast rules". The judge may go outside the range as long as it conforms to the principles and objectives of sentencing.

Some courts have stated that deviation from the range requires something "special" or "unusual" about the case.

Parity to Co-Accused

Co-accused who are equally responsible for the offence should, with all else being equal, expect to have similar sentences.

In a situation of co-accused, the roles of the parties will be considered as well as their personal circumstances.

The principle of parity does not require equal sentences for participants in the same offence. Rather, they must "only [be] understandable sentences when examined together."

Where there is disparity between offenders who participated in a "common venture", the judge must show justification.

Where accomplices who commit the crime at the orders of a principal and agree to testify against he principal can be afforded lesser sentences than the principal.

Uncharged Co-Accused

Uncharged accomplices who sign an immunity agreement in exchange for testimony of the accused is not a relevant factor to sentencing of the accused.

See Also

• Sentencing Starting Points