Remand Credit: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "c.f." to "cf." |
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1''," |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- --> | <!-- --> | ||
Where the offence is one with a mandatory minimum, the court may give remand credit that has the effect of reducing the sentence below the mandatory jail sentence.<ref>R v Wust, [http://canlii.ca/t/5266 2000 SCC 18] (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 455{{perSCC|Arbour J}}<br> | Where the offence is one with a mandatory minimum, the court may give remand credit that has the effect of reducing the sentence below the mandatory jail sentence.<ref>''R v Wust'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5266 2000 SCC 18] (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 455{{perSCC|Arbour J}}<br> | ||
R v Arthurs, [http://canlii.ca/t/5268 2000 SCC 19] (CanLII){{perSCC|Arbour J}}{{at|1}}<br></ref> | ''R v Arthurs'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5268 2000 SCC 19] (CanLII){{perSCC|Arbour J}}{{at|1}}<br></ref> | ||
A failure to take into account remand time is an error of principle.<ref>R v Aubin [http://canlii.ca/t/2607r 2009 BCCA 418] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Levine JA}} at para 2 </ref> | A failure to take into account remand time is an error of principle.<ref>R v Aubin [http://canlii.ca/t/2607r 2009 BCCA 418] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Levine JA}} at para 2 </ref> | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
'''Purpose of Pre-trial Credit'''<Br> | '''Purpose of Pre-trial Credit'''<Br> | ||
While "pre-trial detention is not intended as punishment ... in effect, [it is] deemed part of the punishment following the offender's conviction" by function of s. 719(3).<ref> | While "pre-trial detention is not intended as punishment ... in effect, [it is] deemed part of the punishment following the offender's conviction" by function of s. 719(3).<ref> | ||
R v Wilson, [http://canlii.ca/t/1z3xw 2008 ONCA 510] (CanLII){{perONCA|Roseberg JA}}{{at|41}}<br> | ''R v Wilson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1z3xw 2008 ONCA 510] (CanLII){{perONCA|Roseberg JA}}{{at|41}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
It generally preferred that when calculating a global sentence for multiple offences that the sentence be determined before taking into account pre-trial custody. Instead, the ordered sentence should be declared to be reduced for pre-trial custody credit. | It generally preferred that when calculating a global sentence for multiple offences that the sentence be determined before taking into account pre-trial custody. Instead, the ordered sentence should be declared to be reduced for pre-trial custody credit. | ||
<ref> | <ref> | ||
R v Schira, [http://canlii.ca/t/1j9sz 2004 ABCA 369] (CanLII){{perABCA|Conrad JA}}<br> | ''R v Schira'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1j9sz 2004 ABCA 369] (CanLII){{perABCA|Conrad JA}}<br> | ||
R v Letta, [http://canlii.ca/t/1j4qh 2004 MBCA 179] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Huband JA}}<br> | ''R v Letta'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1j4qh 2004 MBCA 179] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Huband JA}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The amount of presentence bail and the associated credit does not need to be a precise mathematical calculation.<ref> | The amount of presentence bail and the associated credit does not need to be a precise mathematical calculation.<ref> | ||
R v Persaud, [http://canlii.ca/t/ghl4h 2015 ONCA 343] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} | ''R v Persaud'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ghl4h 2015 ONCA 343] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The time spent serving another sentence is only relevant to sentencing as it is "part of the complete picture for understanding a particular offender".<ref> | The time spent serving another sentence is only relevant to sentencing as it is "part of the complete picture for understanding a particular offender".<ref> | ||
R v Pammett, [http://canlii.ca/t/gwmcf 2016 ONCA 979] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} at para 27<br> | ''R v Pammett'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gwmcf 2016 ONCA 979] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} at para 27<br> | ||
Wilson{{supra}} at para 46<br> | Wilson{{supra}} at para 46<br> | ||
</ref> It is an error of law to give credit for time served on other charges.<ref> | </ref> It is an error of law to give credit for time served on other charges.<ref> | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
The loss of remission or parole eligibility while on remand will be basis for enhanced credit unless there is evidence that the offender would ''not'' have been given early release or that he was attempting to "game" the system by delaying the proceedings. | The loss of remission or parole eligibility while on remand will be basis for enhanced credit unless there is evidence that the offender would ''not'' have been given early release or that he was attempting to "game" the system by delaying the proceedings. | ||
<ref> | <ref> | ||
R v Clarke, [http://canlii.ca/t/g6h8s 2014 SCC 28] (CanLII){{perSCC|Abella J}}<br> | ''R v Clarke'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6h8s 2014 SCC 28] (CanLII){{perSCC|Abella J}}<br> | ||
R v Carvery, [http://canlii.ca/t/g6h8q 2014 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}<br> | ''R v Carvery'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6h8q 2014 SCC 27] (CanLII){{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}<br> | ||
R v Summers, [http://canlii.ca/t/g6h8n 2014 SCC 26] (CanLII){{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}<br> | ''R v Summers'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g6h8n 2014 SCC 26] (CanLII){{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Enhanced credit will be afforded where there is "particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions". This can include considerations of "conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused".<ref> | Enhanced credit will be afforded where there is "particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions". This can include considerations of "conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused".<ref> | ||
R v Duncan, [http://canlii.ca/t/gv2xf 2016 ONCA 754] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}{{at|6}}<br> | ''R v Duncan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gv2xf 2016 ONCA 754] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}{{at|6}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
===Examples of Enhanced Credit=== | ===Examples of Enhanced Credit=== | ||
Circumstances in which enhanced credit have been given include:<ref>R v Stonefish, [http://canlii.ca/t/fvfcn 2012 MBCA 116] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Steel JA}} - summary of circumstances of enhanced credit</ref> | Circumstances in which enhanced credit have been given include:<ref>''R v Stonefish'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fvfcn 2012 MBCA 116] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Steel JA}} - summary of circumstances of enhanced credit</ref> | ||
# Conditions of the remand facilities: | # Conditions of the remand facilities: | ||
## lack of available programming and counselling<ref> | ## lack of available programming and counselling<ref> | ||
e.g., R v Haly, [http://canlii.ca/t/fr4dg 2012 ONSC 2302] (CanLII){{perONSC|MacDonnell J}} -- 1.2:1 time was given<br> | e.g., ''R v Haly'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fr4dg 2012 ONSC 2302] (CanLII){{perONSC|MacDonnell J}} -- 1.2:1 time was given<br> | ||
R v Mullins (P.E.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fplqb 2011 SKQB 478] (CanLII){{perSKQB|Zarzeczny J}}<br> | R v Mullins (P.E.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fplqb 2011 SKQB 478] (CanLII){{perSKQB|Zarzeczny J}}<br> | ||
R c Auger, [http://canlii.ca/t/fpwj1 2012 QCCQ 568] (CanLII){{perQCCQ|Westmoreland-Traore J}}<br> | R c Auger, [http://canlii.ca/t/fpwj1 2012 QCCQ 568] (CanLII){{perQCCQ|Westmoreland-Traore J}}<br> | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
## frequency of lockdowns during remand<ref> | ## frequency of lockdowns during remand<ref> | ||
e.g. Mullins{{supra}}<br> | e.g. Mullins{{supra}}<br> | ||
R v Oates, [http://canlii.ca/t/fs2qh 2012 ONCJ 461] (CanLII){{perONCJ|George J}}<br> | ''R v Oates'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fs2qh 2012 ONCJ 461] (CanLII){{perONCJ|George J}}<br> | ||
cf. R v Sayed, [http://canlii.ca/t/fq7sg 2012 ONSC 843] (CanLII){{perONSC|Pattillo J}} | cf. ''R v Sayed'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fq7sg 2012 ONSC 843] (CanLII){{perONSC|Pattillo J}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
## duration of time in solitary confinement<ref> | ## duration of time in solitary confinement<ref> | ||
e.g., R v Seymour, [http://canlii.ca/t/fp7sm 2011 BCSC 1682] (CanLII){{perBCSC|CL Smith J}} solitary for his own protection<br> | e.g., ''R v Seymour'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fp7sm 2011 BCSC 1682] (CanLII){{perBCSC|CL Smith J}} solitary for his own protection<br> | ||
R c Guo, [http://canlii.ca/t/fn40r 2011 QCCQ 10469] (CanLII){{perQCCQ|Chevalier J}}<br> | R c Guo, [http://canlii.ca/t/fn40r 2011 QCCQ 10469] (CanLII){{perQCCQ|Chevalier J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
## other harsh circumstances in the facility such as double bunking, sleeping on floor, violence, etc.<ref> | ## other harsh circumstances in the facility such as double bunking, sleeping on floor, violence, etc.<ref> | ||
e.g., ''R v JB'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fm6lf 2011 BCPC 158] (CanLII){{perBCPC|Challenger J}} - double-bunking and exposure to violence<br> | e.g., ''R v JB'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fm6lf 2011 BCPC 158] (CanLII){{perBCPC|Challenger J}} - double-bunking and exposure to violence<br> | ||
R v Clayton, [http://canlii.ca/t/frdxj 2012 ABQB 333] (CanLII){{perABQB|Eidsvik J}} - overcrowding, slept on the floor<br> | ''R v Clayton'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frdxj 2012 ABQB 333] (CanLII){{perABQB|Eidsvik J}} - overcrowding, slept on the floor<br> | ||
Auger - no visitors while on remand<br> | Auger - no visitors while on remand<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
e.g., R v Dingwell (D.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fr3xj 2012 PESC 13] (CanLII){{perPEISC|Mitchell J}}<br> | e.g., R v Dingwell (D.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fr3xj 2012 PESC 13] (CanLII){{perPEISC|Mitchell J}}<br> | ||
''R v BRS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fn8kf 2011 ONCJ 484] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Robertson J}}<br> | ''R v BRS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fn8kf 2011 ONCJ 484] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Robertson J}}<br> | ||
R v Sabatine, [http://canlii.ca/t/frfph 2012 ONCJ 310] (CanLII){{perONCJ|LeRoy J}} - judge requested further submissions and time spent drafting reasons<br></ref> | ''R v Sabatine'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frfph 2012 ONCJ 310] (CanLII){{perONCJ|LeRoy J}} - judge requested further submissions and time spent drafting reasons<br></ref> | ||
## request by Court or Crown for a pre-sentence report or Gladue report<ref> | ## request by Court or Crown for a pre-sentence report or Gladue report<ref> | ||
e.g,. R v House (Z.C.) (2012), 319 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 197 (NL Prov. Ct.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fq998 2012 CanLII 8497] (NL PC){{perNLPC|Gorman J}}<br> | e.g,. R v House (Z.C.) (2012), 319 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 197 (NL Prov. Ct.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fq998 2012 CanLII 8497] (NL PC){{perNLPC|Gorman J}}<br> | ||
R v Sharkey, [http://canlii.ca/t/fnsmj 2011 BCSC 1541] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Gray J}}<br> | ''R v Sharkey'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fnsmj 2011 BCSC 1541] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Gray J}}<br> | ||
R v Mozumdar, [http://canlii.ca/t/fqpzr 2012 ONCJ 151] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Lipson J}}<br> | ''R v Mozumdar'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqpzr 2012 ONCJ 151] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Lipson J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
## multiple court appearances for the purposes of sentencing<ref> | ## multiple court appearances for the purposes of sentencing<ref> | ||
e.g., R v Przybyla, [http://canlii.ca/t/fs4dd 2012 ABPC 183] (CanLII){{perABPC|Barley J}}<br> | e.g., ''R v Przybyla'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fs4dd 2012 ABPC 183] (CanLII){{perABPC|Barley J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
# delay due to Crown<ref> | # delay due to Crown<ref> | ||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
There mere fact that the offender was subject to extensive periods of lock-down with no evidence of "any adverse effect flowing from the locked down conditions", will not warrant enhanced credit beyond 1.5:1.<ref> | There mere fact that the offender was subject to extensive periods of lock-down with no evidence of "any adverse effect flowing from the locked down conditions", will not warrant enhanced credit beyond 1.5:1.<ref> | ||
R v Duncan, [http://canlii.ca/t/gv2xf 2016 ONCA 754] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}, at para 11 (there was “no evidence of any adverse effect flowing from the locked down conditions”)<br> | ''R v Duncan'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gv2xf 2016 ONCA 754] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}}, at para 11 (there was “no evidence of any adverse effect flowing from the locked down conditions”)<br> | ||
R v Henry, [http://canlii.ca/t/gvnt9 2016 ONCA 873] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} at para 9<Br> | ''R v Henry'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gvnt9 2016 ONCA 873] (CanLII){{TheCourtONCA}} at para 9<Br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
# delay caused by the offender, including where the proceedings are drawn out deliberately.<ref> | # delay caused by the offender, including where the proceedings are drawn out deliberately.<ref> | ||
See R v Leggo (R.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fpsjf 2012 CanLII 2802] (NL PC), (2012), 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 252 (NL Prov. Ct.){{perNLPC|Gorman J}}<br> | See R v Leggo (R.), [http://canlii.ca/t/fpsjf 2012 CanLII 2802] (NL PC), (2012), 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 252 (NL Prov. Ct.){{perNLPC|Gorman J}}<br> | ||
R v Morris, [http://canlii.ca/t/fn1nc 2011 ONSC 5206] (CanLII){{perONSC|Harvison-Young J}}<br> | ''R v Morris'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fn1nc 2011 ONSC 5206] (CanLII){{perONSC|Harvison-Young J}}<br> | ||
R v Johnson, [http://canlii.ca/t/2fwtz 2011 ONCJ 77] (CanLII){{perONCJ|M Green J}}<br> | ''R v Johnson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2fwtz 2011 ONCJ 77] (CanLII){{perONCJ|M Green J}}<br> | ||
''R v JB'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fm6lf 2011 BCPC 158] (CanLII){{perBCPC|Challenger J}}<br> | ''R v JB'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fm6lf 2011 BCPC 158] (CanLII){{perBCPC|Challenger J}}<br> | ||
R v Sabatine, [http://canlii.ca/t/frfph 2012 ONCJ 310] (CanLII){{perONCJ|LeRoy J}}<br> | ''R v Sabatine'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frfph 2012 ONCJ 310] (CanLII){{perONCJ|LeRoy J}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
===Awaiting Extradition=== | ===Awaiting Extradition=== | ||
Remand credit is not mandatory where the offender absconds from Canada.<ref> | Remand credit is not mandatory where the offender absconds from Canada.<ref> | ||
R v Millward, [http://canlii.ca/t/5rm3 2000 ABCA 308] (CanLII){{perABCA|Fraser JA}} (2:1) at para 3<br> | ''R v Millward'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5rm3 2000 ABCA 308] (CanLII){{perABCA|Fraser JA}} (2:1) at para 3<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The Court may give no credit or limited credit depending on the circumstances including whether the offender attempted to contest extradition. | The Court may give no credit or limited credit depending on the circumstances including whether the offender attempted to contest extradition. | ||
| Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
==Pre-Amendments 2010== | ==Pre-Amendments 2010== | ||
Offenders who commit offences that were committed before the amendments of the Truth in Sentencing Act are not subject to those amendments.<ref> | Offenders who commit offences that were committed before the amendments of the Truth in Sentencing Act are not subject to those amendments.<ref> | ||
R v Codner, [http://canlii.ca/t/fwd7s 2013 ONCA 138] (CanLII){{perONCA|Epstein JA}}, at para 13</ref> This includes accused who are charged after the date of the amendments. Retrospective application of the remand amendments violates section 11 (i) of the Charter.<ref> | ''R v Codner'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwd7s 2013 ONCA 138] (CanLII){{perONCA|Epstein JA}}, at para 13</ref> This includes accused who are charged after the date of the amendments. Retrospective application of the remand amendments violates section 11 (i) of the Charter.<ref> | ||
''R v RS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ghd9x 2015 ONCA 291] (CanLII){{perONCA|Benotto JA}}, at para 35 referring to s. 5 of Truth in Sentencing Act which changed s. 719(3) of the Code</ref> | ''R v RS'', [http://canlii.ca/t/ghd9x 2015 ONCA 291] (CanLII){{perONCA|Benotto JA}}, at para 35 referring to s. 5 of Truth in Sentencing Act which changed s. 719(3) of the Code</ref> | ||
Prior to the amendments it was normal for an offender to receive two for one credit for pre-sentence custody.<ref> | Prior to the amendments it was normal for an offender to receive two for one credit for pre-sentence custody.<ref> | ||
R v Pangman [http://canlii.ca/t/1fkf4 2001 MBCA 64] (CanLII), (2001), 154 CCC (3d) 193{{perMBCA|Steel JA}}<br> | R v Pangman [http://canlii.ca/t/1fkf4 2001 MBCA 64] (CanLII), (2001), 154 CCC (3d) 193{{perMBCA|Steel JA}}<br> | ||
R v Francis, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mzjv 2006 CanLII 10203] (ON CA), [2006] OJ No 1287 (C.A.){{perONCA|Weiler JA}}<br> | ''R v Francis'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mzjv 2006 CanLII 10203] (ON CA), [2006] OJ No 1287 (C.A.){{perONCA|Weiler JA}}<br> | ||
Codner{{supra}} at para 13<br> | Codner{{supra}} at para 13<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 12:19, 13 January 2019
General Principles
Where the offence is one with a mandatory minimum, the court may give remand credit that has the effect of reducing the sentence below the mandatory jail sentence.[1]
A failure to take into account remand time is an error of principle.[2] The method of taking into account remand time is to first calculate the total sentence and then deduct an amount of credit based on the amount of time served.[3]
s. 719
...
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.
Exception
(3.1) Despite subsection (3), if the circumstances justify it, the maximum is one and one-half days for each day spent in custody unlessthe reason for detaining the person in custody was stated in the record under subsection 515(9.1) or* the person was detained in custody under subsection 524(4) or (8).[* see below]
Reasons
(3.2) The court shall give reasons for any credit granted and shall cause those reasons to be stated in the record.
Record of proceedings
(3.3) The court shall cause to be stated in the record and on the warrant of committal the offence, the amount of time spent in custody, the term of imprisonment that would have been imposed before any credit was granted, the amount of time credited, if any, and the sentence imposed.
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 719; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 157; 1995, c. 22, s. 6; 2009, c. 29, s. 3.
[annotations added]
[* found unconstitutional]
– CCC
Purpose of Pre-trial Credit
While "pre-trial detention is not intended as punishment ... in effect, [it is] deemed part of the punishment following the offender's conviction" by function of s. 719(3).[4]
History
On February, 2010, the Truth in Sentencing Act came into force limiting to circumstances where offenders on remand can get 2 for 1 credit. All offences occurring before that date will still be subject to the old rules of remand credit.
Prior to 2010, courts had discretion to grant 2:1 remand credit for time spent in custody. In practice, this was granted in most cases. The addition of s. 719(3.1) required a credit of 1:1 unless justified and with a maximum of 1:1.5 credit for remand time.
Procedure
It generally preferred that when calculating a global sentence for multiple offences that the sentence be determined before taking into account pre-trial custody. Instead, the ordered sentence should be declared to be reduced for pre-trial custody credit.
[5]
The amount of presentence bail and the associated credit does not need to be a precise mathematical calculation.[6]
Constitutionality
The portion of s. 718(3.1) stating "the reason for detaining the person in custody was stated in the record under subsection 515(9.1) or" was found to be unconstitutional, violating s. 7 of the Charter due to being overbroad.[7]
The remainder of the provision has been found constitutional.[8]
No Pre-trial Credit When Already Serving a Sentence
An offender cannot claim pretrial credit for any pre-trial custody spent due to remand or due to serving a sentence.[9]
The time spent serving another sentence is only relevant to sentencing as it is "part of the complete picture for understanding a particular offender".[10] It is an error of law to give credit for time served on other charges.[11]
- ↑ R v Wust, 2000 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 455, per Arbour J
R v Arthurs, 2000 SCC 19 (CanLII), per Arbour J, at para 1
- ↑ R v Aubin 2009 BCCA 418 (CanLII), per Levine JA at para 2
- ↑ R v Orr 2008 BCCA 76 (CanLII), per Hall JA, at para 22
- ↑
R v Wilson, 2008 ONCA 510 (CanLII), per Roseberg JA, at para 41
- ↑
R v Schira, 2004 ABCA 369 (CanLII), per Conrad JA
R v Letta, 2004 MBCA 179 (CanLII), per Huband JA
- ↑ R v Persaud, 2015 ONCA 343 (CanLII), per curiam
- ↑
R v Safarzadeh‑Markhali, 2016 SCC 14 (CanLII), per McLachlin CJ - provision identified in 2014 ONCA 627 (CanLII), per Strathy JA at para 124
R v Kovich (GW), 2016 MBCA 19 (CanLII), per Steel JA
- ↑ R v McIntyre, 2017 ONSC 360 (CanLII), per Akhtar J
- ↑
Wilson, supra at para 41 to 42
- ↑
R v Pammett, 2016 ONCA 979 (CanLII), per curiam at para 27
Wilson, supra at para 46
- ↑
Pammett, supra at para 29
Circumstances Where Enhanced Credit is Given
The loss of remission or parole eligibility while on remand will be basis for enhanced credit unless there is evidence that the offender would not have been given early release or that he was attempting to "game" the system by delaying the proceedings. [1]
Enhanced credit will be afforded where there is "particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions". This can include considerations of "conditions of the presentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused".[2]
- ↑
R v Clarke, 2014 SCC 28 (CanLII), per Abella J
R v Carvery, 2014 SCC 27 (CanLII), per Karakatsanis J
R v Summers, 2014 SCC 26 (CanLII), per Karakatsanis J
- ↑
R v Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 (CanLII), per curiam, at para 6
Examples of Enhanced Credit
Circumstances in which enhanced credit have been given include:[1]
- Conditions of the remand facilities:
- delay post-trial not attributed to the accused:
- delay due to Crown[9]
There mere fact that the offender was subject to extensive periods of lock-down with no evidence of "any adverse effect flowing from the locked down conditions", will not warrant enhanced credit beyond 1.5:1.[10]
- ↑ R v Stonefish, 2012 MBCA 116 (CanLII), per Steel JA - summary of circumstances of enhanced credit
- ↑
e.g., R v Haly, 2012 ONSC 2302 (CanLII), per MacDonnell J -- 1.2:1 time was given
R v Mullins (P.E.), 2011 SKQB 478 (CanLII), per Zarzeczny J
R c Auger, 2012 QCCQ 568 (CanLII), per Westmoreland-Traore J
- ↑
e.g. Mullins, supra
R v Oates, 2012 ONCJ 461 (CanLII), per George J
cf. R v Sayed, 2012 ONSC 843 (CanLII), per Pattillo J - ↑
e.g., R v Seymour, 2011 BCSC 1682 (CanLII), per CL Smith J solitary for his own protection
R c Guo, 2011 QCCQ 10469 (CanLII), per Chevalier J
- ↑
e.g., R v JB, 2011 BCPC 158 (CanLII), per Challenger J - double-bunking and exposure to violence
R v Clayton, 2012 ABQB 333 (CanLII), per Eidsvik J - overcrowding, slept on the floor
Auger - no visitors while on remand
- ↑
e.g., R v Dingwell (D.A.), 2012 PESC 13 (CanLII), per Mitchell J
R v BRS, 2011 ONCJ 484 (CanLII), per Robertson J
R v Sabatine, 2012 ONCJ 310 (CanLII), per LeRoy J - judge requested further submissions and time spent drafting reasons
- ↑
e.g,. R v House (Z.C.) (2012), 319 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 197 (NL Prov. Ct.), 2012 CanLII 8497 (NL PC), per Gorman J
R v Sharkey, 2011 BCSC 1541 (CanLII), per Gray J
R v Mozumdar, 2012 ONCJ 151 (CanLII), per Lipson J
- ↑
e.g., R v Przybyla, 2012 ABPC 183 (CanLII), per Barley J
- ↑
e.g., R c Lefrançois, 2012 QCCQ 5655 (CanLII), per Marleau J
- ↑
R v Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 (CanLII), per curiam, at para 11 (there was “no evidence of any adverse effect flowing from the locked down conditions”)
R v Henry, 2016 ONCA 873 (CanLII), per curiam at para 9
Circumstances Where Enhanced Credit is Denied
Enhanced credit will be denied in circumstances such as:
- delay caused by the offender, including where the proceedings are drawn out deliberately.[1]
- ↑
See R v Leggo (R.), 2012 CanLII 2802 (NL PC), (2012), 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 252 (NL Prov. Ct.), per Gorman J
R v Morris, 2011 ONSC 5206 (CanLII), per Harvison-Young J
R v Johnson, 2011 ONCJ 77 (CanLII), per M Green J
R v JB, 2011 BCPC 158 (CanLII), per Challenger J
R v Sabatine, 2012 ONCJ 310 (CanLII), per LeRoy J
Awaiting Extradition
Remand credit is not mandatory where the offender absconds from Canada.[1] The Court may give no credit or limited credit depending on the circumstances including whether the offender attempted to contest extradition. [2]
- ↑
R v Millward, 2000 ABCA 308 (CanLII), per Fraser JA (2:1) at para 3
- ↑
Millward, ibid. at para 3
Pre-Amendments 2010
Offenders who commit offences that were committed before the amendments of the Truth in Sentencing Act are not subject to those amendments.[1] This includes accused who are charged after the date of the amendments. Retrospective application of the remand amendments violates section 11 (i) of the Charter.[2]
Prior to the amendments it was normal for an offender to receive two for one credit for pre-sentence custody.[3]
- ↑ R v Codner, 2013 ONCA 138 (CanLII), per Epstein JA, at para 13
- ↑ R v RS, 2015 ONCA 291 (CanLII), per Benotto JA, at para 35 referring to s. 5 of Truth in Sentencing Act which changed s. 719(3) of the Code
- ↑
R v Pangman 2001 MBCA 64 (CanLII), (2001), 154 CCC (3d) 193, per Steel JA
R v Francis, 2006 CanLII 10203 (ON CA), [2006] OJ No 1287 (C.A.), per Weiler JA
Codner, supra at para 13
Youth Sentence
The maximum sentence may still be given despite any remand credit available. [1]
- ↑ R v P. (N.W.), 2008 MBCA 101 (CanLII), per Monnin JA at para 10