R. v. Bunn (T.A.), (2000) 249 N.R. 296 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory*, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 31, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 249 N.R. 296 (SCC);2000 SCC 9;[2000] 4 WWR 1;[2000] ACS no 10;[2000] CarswellMan 16;249 NR 296;212 WAC 256;AZ-50068945;[2000] SCJ No 10 (QL);JE 2000-263;EYB 2000-16191;30 CR (5th) 86;142 Man R (2d) 256;182 DLR (4th) 56;140 CCC (3d) 505;[2000] 1 SCR 183

R. v. Bunn (T.A.) (2000), 249 N.R. 296 (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: [2000] N.R. TBEd. JA.018

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Thomas Andrew Bunn (respondent) and the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General for Ontario (interveners)

(26339; 2000 SCC 9)

Indexed As: R. v. Bunn (T.A.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory*, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

January 31, 2000.

Summary:

An accused was found guilty by a jury on six counts each of criminal breach of trust and theft. The breach of trust and the theft charges related to the same transactions. A stay of proceedings was entered respecting the theft charges.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to two years' im­prisonment. The accused appealed the sen­tence. The Crown cross-appealed the sen­tence. Before the appeal was heard, pro­visions in the Criminal Code for conditional sentences came into effect.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a de­cision reported 118 Man.R.(2d) 300; 149 W.A.C. 300, allowed the accused's appeal and reduced the sentence to two years' im­prisonment less a day and granted a con­ditional sentence. The Crown appealed re­garding the conditional sentence.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Bastarache, L'Heureux-Dubé and Binnie, JJ., dissenting dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5609

Punishments (sentence) - General prin­ciples - Right to benefit of lesser punish­ment - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5720.9 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 5720.9 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.9

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - Appeals - An accused lawyer was convicted on six counts of criminal breach of trust - The sentencing judge sentenced the accused to two years' im­prisonment - Subsequently, Criminal Code provisions for conditional sentences came into effect - On appeal, the Manitoba Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to two years' imprisonment less a day and granted a conditional sentence - The Crown appealed, arguing that the court of appeal erred in reducing the sentence by one day and in applying the conditional sentencing provisions - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused was en­titled to the changes to the law on appeal and, therefore; the court of appeal was en­titled to conduct a resentencing - See para­graphs 14 to 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.9

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - Appeals - An accused lawyer was convicted on six counts of criminal breach of trust - Seventeen beneficiaries were affected - The total amount in issue was $86,000 - Supporting disabled wife and a teenage daughter - Responsible for household duties - Living modestly - Sus­pended from the law society - A sen­tenc­ing judge sentenced the accused to two years' imprisonment - Subsequently, Criminal Code provisions for conditional sentences came into effect - The Manitoba Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to two years' imprisonment less a day to be served in the community - The Crown appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellate court was entitled to some deference and there was no reason to interfere with the decision - See para­graphs 22 to 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 5941

Sentence - Criminal breach of trust - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5720.9 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6201

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sen­tence - Powers of appeal court - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 5720.9 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.) (2000), 249 N.R. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 1, 26].

R. v. L.F.W. (2000), 249 N.R. 345 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. R.N.S. (2000), 249 N.R. 365 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 1, 25].

R. v. R.A.R. (2000), 249 N.R. 322 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 1, 25].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351; 26 C.R.N.S. 1, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Dunn (J.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 226; 176 N.R. 375; 79 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 9, 27].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 17, 32].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 21, 27].

R. v. Barker (W.L.) (1995), 102 Man.R.(2d) 305; 93 W.A.C. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Kelleher, [1995] M.J. No. 398 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Ryan, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 668; 1 A.R. 355 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Bergeron, [1998] Q.J. No. 3539 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Gingera, [1966] 1 C.C.C. 273 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Manolescu (J.N.) (1997), 202 A.R. 241 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Oliver, [1977] 5 W.W.R. 344 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Shandro (1985), 65 A.R. 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Marchessault v. R. (1984), 41 C.R.(3d) 318 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Foran, [1970] 1 C.C.C. 336 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 718, sect. 718.1 [para. 6]; sect. 718.2(e) [para. 18]; sect. 718.2, sect. 742.1 [para. 6].

Counsel:

Matthew Britton, for the appellant;

Martin D. Glazer, for the respondent;

S. Ronald Fainstein, Q.C., for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Kenneth L. Campbell and Gregory J. Tweney, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario.

Solicitors of Record:

Manitoba Justice, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the appellant;

Martin D. Glazer, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent;

Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario.

This appeal was heard on May 25 and 26, 1999, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory*, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 31, 2000, the decision of the court was delivered in both official lan­guages and the following opinions were filed:

Lamer, C.J.C. (Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 24;

Bastarache, J., dissenting (L'Heureux-Dubé and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 25 to 38;

*Cory, J., took no part in the judgment.