R. v. Omilgoituk (L.), (2007) 422 A.R. 375 (NWTCA)

JudgeCostigan, Slatter and Rowbotham, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Northwest Territories)
Case DateNovember 22, 2007
JurisdictionNorthwest Territories
Citations(2007), 422 A.R. 375 (NWTCA)

R. v. Omilgoituk (L.) (2007), 422 A.R. 375 (NWTCA);

      415 W.A.C. 375

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. DE.039

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Lyle Omilgoituk (appellant)

(A-0001-AP-2006000015; 2007 NWTCA 8)

Indexed As: R. v. Omilgoituk (L.)

Northwest Territories Court of Appeal

Costigan, Slatter and Rowbotham, JJ.A.

November 22, 2007.


The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of assault causing bodily harm against two different complainants. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. He appealed.

The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal held that it was not clear if proper credit was given for the three months spent on remand time. Accordingly, the court reduced the sentence to three years and nine months on each count, to be served concurrently. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of assault causing bodily harm against two different complainants - Crown and defence counsel both submitted that the starting point for calculating the sentence should be 2.5 years - The trial judge imposed concurrent sentences of four years' imprisonment on each count - The accused appealed - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal noted that this was not a formal joint submission nor did the accused agree to plead guilty on the understanding that the Crown and defence would make a unified submission on sentence ("plea bargain") - The trial judge found that the proposed sentence did not adequately address sentencing principles or reflect the prevalence of violent crime in the jurisdiction - He was not bound by counsel's submissions, although often the sentence recommended by the Crown would be seen as a maximum - The accused argued that if the trial judge was going to depart from the concurrent recommendations of counsel, it was incumbent on him to draw that to counsel's attention and ask them to make submissions on the point - The trial judge did indicate his discomfort with the counsel's recommendations, although at the end of argument - He then adjourned over the lunch hour before imposing sentence - When court reconvened neither counsel asked to present further argument, which indicated that counsel had said all that could be said - It would have been helpful if the trial judge had signaled to counsel during argument that he was uncomfortable with their positions - However, he considered all the relevant factors and imposed a sentence within the range for similar sentences - There was no reviewable error - See paragraphs 1 to 6.

Criminal Law - Topic 5883

Sentence - Assault with a weapon or assault causing bodily harm - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5813 ].


Hugh Latimer, for the appellant;

Christine Gagnon, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Costigan, Slatter and Rowbotham, JJ.A., of the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal, on November 22, 2007. On the same date, Slatter, J.A., delivered the following oral decision for the court, which was released in writing on December 5, 2007.

To continue reading

Request your trial

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