R. v. Bartkow (Comment), (1994) 38 B.C.A.C. 65

• Case Date: February 09, 1994
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1994), 38 B.C.A.C. 65

R. v. Bartkow (Comment) (1994), 38 B.C.A.C. 65;

    62 W.A.C. 65

MLB Case Comment

CASE COMMENT

R. v. Bartkow (1978), 24 N.S.R.(2d) 518; 35 A.P.R. 518.

The Contents of Presentence Reports in British Columbia: Recent Developments

Indexed As: R. v. Bartkow (Comment)

Gilles Renaud

Assistant Crown Attorney

Ministry of the Attorney General

Ottawa, Ontario

February 9, 1994.

Summary:

A commentator questioned whether the traditional guidelines in R. v. Bartkow (1978), 24 N.S.R.(2d) 518; 35 A.P.R. 518 (C.A.), respecting limitations on what information was properly included in a presentence report, continued to be valid in light of recent case law, principally from British Columbia and Quebec.

Criminal Law - Topic 5843

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Content of presentence report - A commentator questioned whether the traditional guidelines in R. v. Bartkow (1978), 24 N.S.R.(2d) 518; 35 A.P.R. 518 (C.A.), respecting limitations on what information was properly included in a presentence report, continued to be valid in light of recent case law, principally from British Columbia and Quebec.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bartkow (1978), 24 N.S.R.(2d) 518; 35 A.P.R. 518; 1 C.R.(3d) S-36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Huang (Y.W.) (1993), 27 B.C.A.C. 293; 45 W.A.C. 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. King (1990), 66 Man.R.(2d) 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Giles (1992), 123 A.R. 104 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Moyan (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 37; 1 W.A.C. 37 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Beaudry (D.J.) (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 24; 29 W.A.C. 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 4].

R. v. Pizzey (1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 41; 17 W.A.C. 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 4].

R. v. Mulvahill (1991), 5 B.C.A.C. 1; 11 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 5].

R. v. Béland, [1989] R.J.Q. 425 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 5].

R. v. Gervais (1992), 46 Q.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. Ashoona, [1986] N.W.T.R. 238 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Abell (J.A.) (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 26; 22 W.A.C. 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 7].

R. v. Groulx (1989), J.E. 89-523, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Lucas (C.W.R.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 224; 27 W.A.C. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 8].

R. v. Savard (1989), J.E. 89-795 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Chan (D.) (1992), 54 Q.A.C. 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 11].

R. v. A.L. (1991), 51 O.A.C. 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 11].

R. v. Cyr (1991), J.E. 91-1204 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 11].

R. v. Kerr (R.S.)(No. 2) (1992), 13 B.C.A.C. 165; 24 W.A.C. 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11, footnote 11].

R. v. Francoeur (1988), 102 N.B.R.(2d) 104; 256 A.P.R. 104 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Arsenault (1981), 30 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 489; 84 A.P.R. 489; 21 C.R.(3d) 268 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 12].

R. v. A.B.C. (1991), 118 A.R. 241 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Morin (1991), 43 Q.A.C. 6; J.E. 92-22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Dobson (T.W.) (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 81; 22 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 13].

R. v. Thul (R.P.) (1992), 11 B.C.A.C. 32; 22 W.A.C. 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 13].

R. v. Sigalas (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 51; 7 W.A.C. 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 14].

R. v. Varga (1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 84; 17 W.A.C. 84 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 16].

R. v. Johnson (K.E.) (1993), 29 B.C.A.C. 69; 48 W.A.C. 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 16].

R. v. E.T.M. (1990), 87 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 226; 271 A.P.R. 226 (Nfld. C.A), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 16].

R. v. B.F.M. (1993), 109 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 244; 343 A.P.R. 244 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 16].

R. v. O.J.G. (1988), 69 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 176; 211 A.P.R. 176 (P.E.I. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 16].

R. v. Tom (D.B.) (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 175; 7 W.A.C. 175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 17].

R. v. Ginther (1991), 6 B.C.A.C. 204; 13 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. M.S. (1991), J.E. 91-1426 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 18].

R. v. O'Neill (S.R.R.) (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 155; 29 W.A.C. 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 19].

R. v. English (1991), 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 301 A.P.R. 147 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 20].

R. v. Smart (D.J.) (1992), 14 B.C.A.C. 73; 26 W.A.C. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 21].

R. v. Munn (H.A.) (1992), 14 B.C.A.C. 230; 26 W.A.C. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 22].

R. v. Flegg (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 179; 7 W.A.C. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 22].

R. v. G.E.W. (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 189; 47 W.A.C. 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 22].

R. v. Schwartz (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 192; 1 W.A.C. 192 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Wallace (J.B.) (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 27; 29 W.A.C. 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Colluney (R.) (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 318; 47 W.A.C. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 23].

R. v. Morrow (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 171; 7 W.A.C. 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 24].

R. v. Mossip (S.F.) (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 81; 29 W.A.C. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 26].

R. v. P.A.G. (1991), J.E. 1112 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 27].

R. v. Couture (1990), J.E. 90-1196 (Qué. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. D.R.W. (1992), 100 Sask.R. 106; 18 W.A.C. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ruby, Clayton C., Sentencing (3rd Ed. 1987), pp. 65 to 70 [para. 1, footnote 1].

R. v. Fuller: Has the Rule Prohibiting Therapeutic Remands Been Brushed Aside?, 35 Crim. Law Q. 99, pp. 99 to 135 [para. 7, footnote 4].

Counsel:

This is a case comment, therefore contains no counsel.

This case comment was delivered by Gilles Renaud, Assistant Crown Attorney, Ministry of the Attorney General, Ottawa, Ontario, on February 9, 1994.