R v Parr, 2020 NUCA 2

Docket Number03-19-001 CAP
JudgeThe Honourable Mr. Justice Frans Slatter; The Honourable Madam Justice Jolaine Antonio; The Honourable Mr. Justice Kevin Feehan
CourtNunavut Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case DateApril 09, 2020
JurisdictionNunavut
Citations2020 NUCA 2
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
12 practice notes
  • R v Sidhu,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 1, 2022
    ...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,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • March 23, 2021
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • January 14, 2021
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Nunavut Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • March 8, 2021
    ...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,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • January 1, 2022
    ...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,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • March 23, 2021
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • January 14, 2021
    ...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
    • Canada
    • Nunavut Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • March 8, 2021
    ...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

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