R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2
| Docket Number | 03-19-001 CAP |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr. Justice Frans Slatter; The Honourable Madam Justice Jolaine Antonio; The Honourable Mr. Justice Kevin Feehan |
| Court | Nunavut Court of Appeal (Canada) |
| Case Date | April 09, 2020 |
| Jurisdiction | Nunavut |
| Citations | 2020 NUCA 2 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
12 practice notes
-
R v Sidhu,
...be requested from counsel; and, in appropriate cases, there may be cause for withdrawal of the plea”). Contra, The Queen v. Parr, 2020 NUCA 2, ¶ 54 (“While the failure of a sentencing judge to flag an intention to sentence outside the recommended range is strongly discour......
-
R v Coreman,
...SCC 48, [2015] 3 SCR 321. More fundamentally, an uneven scrutiny argument is not a proxy for reassessing credibility generally: R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2 at para 42, citing Wanihadie at para 43; R v Mehari, 2020 SKCA 37 at paras 88-89, per Leurer JA (in dissent but not on this point). An appeal......
-
R. v. Nahanee, 2021 BCCA 13
...added.] [48] A similar result was obtained in Gabriel c. R., 2015 QCCA 1391, which cited both R. v. R.R.B. and Keough. [49] In R v. Parr, 2020 NUCA 2, the majority of the Nunavut Court of Appeal took a similar approach, concluding that a sentencing judge’s failure to advise counsel of his i......
-
R v Kritaqliluk, 2021 NUCA 4
...Crown counsel and defence agree that the appropriate statement of law is set out in R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2, paras 54-55, 60. [16] The sentencing judge had “a duty to signal to counsel that [he] was having some difficulties with what was being ......
Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
-
R v Sidhu,
...be requested from counsel; and, in appropriate cases, there may be cause for withdrawal of the plea”). Contra, The Queen v. Parr, 2020 NUCA 2, ¶ 54 (“While the failure of a sentencing judge to flag an intention to sentence outside the recommended range is strongly discour......
-
R v Coreman,
...SCC 48, [2015] 3 SCR 321. More fundamentally, an uneven scrutiny argument is not a proxy for reassessing credibility generally: R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2 at para 42, citing Wanihadie at para 43; R v Mehari, 2020 SKCA 37 at paras 88-89, per Leurer JA (in dissent but not on this point). An appeal......
-
R. v. Nahanee, 2021 BCCA 13
...added.] [48] A similar result was obtained in Gabriel c. R., 2015 QCCA 1391, which cited both R. v. R.R.B. and Keough. [49] In R v. Parr, 2020 NUCA 2, the majority of the Nunavut Court of Appeal took a similar approach, concluding that a sentencing judge’s failure to advise counsel of his i......
-
R v Kritaqliluk, 2021 NUCA 4
...Crown counsel and defence agree that the appropriate statement of law is set out in R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2, paras 54-55, 60. [16] The sentencing judge had “a duty to signal to counsel that [he] was having some difficulties with what was being ......
Request a trial to view additional results