R. v. Anthony-Cook (M.J.), (2016) 488 N.R. 289 (SCC)

JudgeAbella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateOctober 21, 2016
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2016), 488 N.R. 289 (SCC);2016 SCC 43

R. v. Anthony-Cook (M.J.) (2016), 488 N.R. 289 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.R. TBEd. OC.009

Matthew John Anthony-Cook (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario), Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (interveners)

(36410; 2016 SCC 43; 2016 CSC 43)

Indexed As: R. v. Anthony-Cook (M.J.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown, JJ.

October 21, 2016.

Summary:

The 29 year old accused had a long-standing mental health disorder (psychotic) and substance abuse issues. The accused was asked to leave a drop-in centre due to his anger and difficult behaviour. Outside the centre, a volunteer yelled at the accused to "smarten up". He pursued the accused and grabbed him by the shoulders. The accused responded by throwing punches to his head and neck. The volunteer was knocked out. He fell, hit his head on the pavement, and died. The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He had a criminal record of 20 prior convictions since 2007 (break and enters, theft, mischief and assault). He was on probation at the time of the manslaughter. The accused and Crown jointly recommended a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment (with no probation), in addition to pre-trial custody spent in jail and in hospital.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1503, rejected the joint submission as failing to give adequate weight to the principles of denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public. The court held that an appropriate sentence was three years' imprisonment, less 366 days' credit for pre-trial custody in jail, for a net sentence of imprisonment for two years less a day. The court also imposed three years' probation. The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 96; 631 W.A.C. 96, dismissed the appeal. The sentencing judge gave the parties notice that he would possibly not accept the joint submission and gave them an opportunity to make further submissions. The judge's detailed reasons for rejecting the joint submission showed that he gave it careful consideration before rejecting it. The trial judge did not err in fixing the appropriate range of sentence at 3-5 years, in giving credit for pre-trial custody, or in imposing three years' probation, including a condition precluding consumption of illegal drugs. The additional six months' imprisonment plus three years' probation was not a significant departure from the jointly recommended sentence. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The jointly recommended sentence should have been accepted, as it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and was not contrary to the public interest.

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the test for a sentencing judge considering whether to accept a joint sentencing submission was not whether the agreed upon sentence was "unfit" or "demonstrably unfit", but "whether the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest" - Under the "public interest" test, an agreed upon sentence should not be rejected unless the joint submission was "so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down. This is an undeniably high threshold - and for good reason." -See paragraphs 5, 34.

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the following general approach to assist judges troubled by a joint sentencing submission: "First, trial judges should approach the joint submission on an 'as-is' basis. That is to say, the public interest test applies whether the judge is considering varying the proposed sentence or adding something to it that the parties have not mentioned, for example, a probation order. If the parties had not asked for a particular order, the trial judge should assume that it was considered and excluded from the joint submission. ... Second, trial judges should apply the public interest test when they are considering 'jumping' or 'undercutting' a joint submission. ... Third, when faced with a contentious joint submission, trial judges will undoubtedly want to know about the circumstances leading to the joint submission - and in particular, any benefits obtained by the Crown or concessions made by the accused. ... Fourth, if the trial judge is not satisfied with the sentence proposed by counsel, 'fundamental fairness dictates that an opportunity be afforded to counsel to make further submissions in an attempt to address the ... judge's concerns before the sentence is imposed ... The judge should notify counsel that he or she has concerns, and invite further submissions on those concerns, including the possibility of allowing the accused to withdraw his or her guilty plea ... Fifth, if the trial judge's concerns about the joint submission are not alleviated, the judge may allow the accused to apply to withdraw his or her guilty plea. The circumstances in which a plea may be withdrawn need not be settled here. ... Finally, trial judges who remain unsatisfied by counsel's submissions should provide clear and cogent reasons for departing from the joint submission." - See paragraphs 51 to 53, 58 to 60.

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - The 29 year old accused had a long-standing mental health disorder (psychotic) and substance abuse issues - He was asked to leave a drop-in centre due to his anger and difficult behaviour - Outside the centre, a volunteer yelled at the accused to "smarten up" - He pursued the accused and grabbed him by the shoulders - The accused responded by throwing punches to his head and neck - The volunteer was knocked out - He fell, hit his head on the pavement, and died - The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter - He had a criminal record of 20 prior convictions since 2007 (break and enters, theft, mischief and assault) - He was on probation at the time of the manslaughter - The accused and Crown jointly recommended a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment (with no probation), in addition to pre-trial custody spent in jail and in hospital - The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission as failing to give adequate weight to the principles of denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public - The judge held that an appropriate sentence was three years' imprisonment, less 366 days' credit for pre-trial custody in jail, for a net sentence of imprisonment for two years less a day, followed by three years' probation - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the accused's appeal - The sentencing judge gave the parties notice that he would possibly not accept the joint submission and gave them an opportunity to make further submissions - The judge's detailed reasons for rejecting the joint submission showed that he gave it careful consideration before rejecting it - The trial judge did not err in fixing the appropriate range of sentence at 3-5 years, in giving credit for pre-trial custody, or in imposing three years' probation, including a condition precluding consumption of illegal drugs - The additional six months' imprisonment plus three years' probation was not a significant departure from the jointly recommended sentence - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the accused's appeal - The jointly recommended sentence (additional 18 months' imprisonment with no probation) should have been accepted, as it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and was not contrary to the public interest.

Criminal Law - Topic 5882

Sentence - Manslaughter - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5813 ].

Counsel:

Micah B. Rankin, Michael Sobkin and Jeremy G. Jensen, for the appellant;

Mary T. Ainslie, Q.C., and Megan A. Street, for the respondent;

David W. Schermbrucker and Monica McQueen, for the intervener, the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada;

Elise Nakelsky, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Joseph Di Luca and Erin Dann, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Nicholas St-Jacques, Lida Sara Nouraie and Walid Hijazi, for the intervener, Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal;

Emily Lapper and Ryan D. W. Dalziel, for the intervener, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Jensen Law Corporation, Kamloops, British Columbia and Michael Sobkin, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent;

Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario;

Di Luca Barristers, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Desrosiers, Joncas, Nouraie, Massicotte, Montreal, Quebec and Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, for the intervener, Association des avocats de la défense de Montréal;

Bull, Housser & Tupper, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

This appeal was heard on March 31, 2016, before Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté and Brown, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 21, 2016, Moldaver, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.

To continue reading

Request your trial
350 practice notes
  • R. v. Wong, 2018 SCC 25
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 25, 2018
    ...v. Henry, 2011 ONCA 289, 277 C.C.C. (3d) 293; R. v. Quick, 2016 ONCA 95, 129 O.R. (3d) 334. By Wagner J. (dissenting) R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204; Adgey v. The Queen, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 426; R. v. Taillefer, 2003 SCC 70, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; R. v. T. (R.) (1992), 10 O.......
  • R. v. Nahanee, 2022 SCC 37
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 27, 2022
    ...Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ.: The public interest test adopted in R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204 , which instructs judges not to depart from a joint sentencing submission unless the proposed sentence would bring the ......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 10 – February 14, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 8, 2020
    ...Ont.), leave to appeal denied, [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 347 R. v. F, 2020 ONCA 115 Keywords: Criminal Law, Sentencing, R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, R. v. Nixon, 2011 SCC 34, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions, the Ho......
  • The Trial Process
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Procedure. Fourth Edition
    • June 23, 2020
    ...11 CRNS 22 (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, [1970] SCR xi; R v Sommerfeldt (1984), 14 CCC (3d) 445 (BCCA). 119 R v Anthony-Cook , 2016 SCC 43 at para 35 [ Anthony-Cook ]. 120 Anthony-Cook , ibid , at para 32. 121 Section 606(1.1)(a) and (b). 122 See Adgey , above note 117 and R v B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
320 cases
  • R. v. Wong, 2018 SCC 25
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • May 25, 2018
    ...v. Henry, 2011 ONCA 289, 277 C.C.C. (3d) 293; R. v. Quick, 2016 ONCA 95, 129 O.R. (3d) 334. By Wagner J. (dissenting) R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204; Adgey v. The Queen, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 426; R. v. Taillefer, 2003 SCC 70, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; R. v. T. (R.) (1992), 10 O.......
  • R. v. Nahanee, 2022 SCC 37
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 27, 2022
    ...Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Brown, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and Jamal JJ.: The public interest test adopted in R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204 , which instructs judges not to depart from a joint sentencing submission unless the proposed sentence would bring the ......
  • R. v. Anthony‑Cook, [2016] 2 SCR 204
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 21, 2016
    ...data-vids="">86 cases, 11 other sources SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204 Appeal heard: March 31, 2016 Judgment rendered: October 21, 2016 Docket: 36410 Between: Matthew John Anthony-Cook Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent - a......
  • R v Garland,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • February 8, 2021
    ...AC 562. Further still, there would be no degree of waiver that could justify imposing an actually illegal sentence: R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at paras 51, 59, [2016] 2 SCR 204. [21] In sum, the Court’s duty is to uphold the rule of law by applying the law, not what counsel thinks the la......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 10 – February 14, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 8, 2020
    ...Ont.), leave to appeal denied, [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 347 R. v. F, 2020 ONCA 115 Keywords: Criminal Law, Sentencing, R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, R. v. Nixon, 2011 SCC 34, Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions, the Ho......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 11 – 15, 2019)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • February 22, 2019
    ...for the respondent Keywords: Criminal Law, Dangerous Driving, Sentencing, Joint Submission, Criminal Code, s. 249(3), R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, R. v. Frickey, 2017 ONCA 1024 Toronto (City) v. Riddell, 2019 ONCA 103 [Sharpe, Benotto and Brown JJ.A.] Counsel: M. Riddell, acting in pers......
  • The Supreme Court Of Canada Clarifies The Test And Procedure For Joint Submissions On Sentencing
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • November 14, 2016
    ...R. v. Anthony Cook, 2016 SCC 43, the Supreme Court of Canada recently confirmed that trial judges should only depart from a joint submission in very limited circumstances, where the sentence proposed would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or is otherwise not in the public......
  • Guidance From Canada's First Remediation / Deferred Prosecution Agreement For Foreign Corruption
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 16, 2023
    ...would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest": R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 (CanLII), [2016] 2 SCR 204; R. v. Nahanee, 2022 SCC 37 4. Approval decision, at paragraph 62. 5. Approval decision at paragraph 32. 6. Approval d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Law. Eighth edition
    • September 1, 2022
    ...Ansari, 2015 ONCA 575 ....................................................................... 525, 529 R v Anthony-Cook, [2016] 2 SCR 204, 2016 SCC 43 .................................540, 580 R v Antic, [2017] 1 SCR 509, 2017 SCC 27 ................................................... 50, 5......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Sentencing in Canada
    • June 26, 2020
    ...172 R v Anthony-Cook, 2015 BCCA 22, rev’d 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 SCR 204...............................................................23, 118, 123, 146, 147, 277, 396 R v Antic, 2017 SCC 27 ...........................................................................................................
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Criminal Law. Seventh Edition
    • August 4, 2018
    ...2015 ONCA 575 ............................................................................... 506 R v Anthony-Cook, [2016] 2 SCR 204, 2016 SCC 43 ................................. xxv, 519 R v Antic, [2017] 1 SCR 509, 2017 SCC 27 ............................................................5......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Criminal Procedure. Fourth Edition
    • June 23, 2020
    ...R v Ansari, 2015 ONCA 891, 128 OR (3d) 511 .................................................. 563 R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, [2016] 2 SCR 204 .................................506, 509 R v Antic, 2017 SCC 27, [2017] 1 SCR 509 ......................................... 302, 304, 305 R v An......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT