R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), 2000 SCC 5

• 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 SCC 5;(2000), 142 Man.R.(2d) 161 (SCC);[2000] 1 SCR 61;[2001] 1 SCR 61;182 DLR (4th) 1;[2000] 4 WWR 21;140 CCC (3d) 449;30 CR (5th) 1;249 NR 201;[2000] CarswellMan 32;AZ-50068947;EYB 2000-16192;JE 2000-264;[2000] SCJ No 6 (QL);142 Man R (2d) 161;[2000] ACS no 6;212 WAC 161;44 WCB (2d) 479;49 MVR (3d) 163

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.) (2000), 142 Man.R.(2d) 161 (SCC);

    212 W.A.C. 161

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] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.043

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Jeromie Keith D. Proulx (respondent) and the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General for Ontario (interveners)

(26376; 2000 SCC 5)

Indexed As: R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.)

Supreme Court of Canada

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

January 31, 2000.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. The trial judge refused to grant a conditional sentence because it would be inconsistent with the objectives of denun­ciation and general deterrence. The accused appealed the requirement that he serve his sentence in an institution.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a de­cision reported 123 Man.R.(2d) 107; 159 W.A.C. 107, allowed the appeal and imposed a conditional sentence. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the 18 month sentence of incarceration imposed by the trial judge. The court, however, since the accused already had served the conditional sentence in its entirety, stayed service of the sentence of incarceration.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "by passing the Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other Acts in consequence thereof, S.C. 1995, c. 22 ('Bill C-41'), Parliament has sent a clear message to all Canadian judges that too many people are being sent to prison. In an attempt to remedy the prob­lem of over incarceration, Parliament has introduced a new form of sentence, the conditional sentence of imprisonment." - See paragraph 1.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - In September 1996, Bill C-41 came into effect which substan­tially reformed Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, and introduced, inter alia, an express statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing, provisions for alternative measures for adult offenders and a new type of sanction, the conditional sentence of imprisonment - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "Bill C-41 in general and the conditional sentence in particular were enacted both to reduce reliance on incarceration as a sanction and to increase the use of principles of restorative justice in sentencing." - See paragraphs 14 to 18 and 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the nature of the con­ditional sentence - In particular the court compared conditional sentences with sus­pended sentences with probation - See paragraphs 21 to 44 - The court stated that "a conditional sentence should be dis­tinguished from probationary measures. Probation is primarily a rehabilitative sentencing tool. By contrast, Parliament intended conditional sentences to include both punitive and rehabilitative aspects. Therefore, conditional sentences should generally include punitive conditions that are restrictive of the offender's liberty. Conditions such as house arrest should be the norm, not the exception" - See para­graph 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there are four criteria to be considered in determining whether to impose a conditional sentence (Criminal Code, s. 742.1) - These are: (1) the offence does not carry a minimum term of im­prisonment; (2) the term of imprisonment must be less than two years; (3) the com­munity's safety would not be endangered; and (4) a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Code - The court stated that the first three criteria are pre­requisites to any conditional sentence and answer whether a conditional sentence is possible in the circumstances - Once they are met, the next question is whether a conditional sentence is appropriate which turns upon a consideration of the funda­mental purpose and principles of sentenc­ing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 - The court discussed these prerequisites - See para­graphs 45 to 117.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the requirement in s. 742.1(a) [of the Criminal Code] that the judge impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years does not require the judge to first impose a sentence of im­prisonment of a fixed duration before considering whether that sentence can be served in the community. Although this approach is suggested by the text of s. 742.1(a), it is unrealistic and could lead to unfit sentences in some cases. Instead, a purposive interpretation of s. 742.1(a) should be adopted. In a preliminary deter­mination, the sentencing judge should reject a penitentiary term and probationary measures as inappropriate. Having deter­mined that the appropriate range of sen­tence is a term of imprisonment of less than two years, the judge should then consider whether it is appropriate for the offender to serve his or her sentence in the community." - See paragraphs 49 to 61, and 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - Section 742.1(a) of the Criminal Code permitted a conditional sentence where, inter alia, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a purposive interpreta­tion of s. 742.1(a) should be adopted - The court stated that "as a corollary of the purposive interpretation of s. 742.1(a), a conditional sentence need not be of equiva­lent duration to the sentence of incarcer­ation that would otherwise have been imposed. The sole requirement is that the duration and conditions of a conditional sentence make for a just and appropriate sentence." - See paragraph 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the requirement in s. 742.1(b) [of the Criminal Code] that the judge be satisfied that the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving his or her sentence in the community is a condition precedent to the imposition of a conditional sentence, and not the primary consideration in deter­mining whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. In making this determination, the judge should consider the risk posed by the specific offender, not the broader risk of whether the imposition of a conditional sentence would endanger the safety of the community by providing insufficient gen­eral deterrence or undermining general respect for the law. Two factors should be taken into account: (1) the risk of the offender re-offending; and (2) the gravity of the damage that could ensue in the event of re-offence. A consideration of the risk posed by the offender should include the risk of any criminal activity, and not be limited solely to the risk of physical or psychological harm to individuals." - See paragraphs 49 to 76 and 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "as a prerequisite to any conditional sentence, the sentencing judge must be satisfied that having the offender serve the sentence in the community would not endanger its safety ... If the sentencing judge is not satisfied that the safety of the community can be preserved, a conditional sentence must never be imposed." - See paragraphs 63 to 65.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "no offences are excluded from the conditional sentencing regime except those with a minimum term of imprisonment, nor should there be presumptions in favour of or against a conditional sentence for specific offences." - See paragraphs 79 to 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it was not "... necessary to resort to starting points in respect of specific offences to provide guidance as to the proper use of conditional sentences ... the risks posed by starting points, in the form of offence-specific presumptions in favour of incarceration, outweigh their benefits. Starting points are most useful in circumstances where there is the potential for a large disparity between sentences imposed for a particular crime because the range of sentence set out in the Code is particularly broad. In the case of con­ditional sentences, however, the statutory prerequisites of s. 742.1 considerably narrow the range of cases in which a con­ditional sentence may be imposed ... Ac­cordingly, the potential disparity of sen­tence between those offenders who were candidates for a conditional sentence and received a jail term, and those who received a conditional sentence, is relative­ly small." - See paragraph 87.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that once the sentencing judge has found the offender guilty of an offence for which there is no minimum term of imprisonment, has rejected both a pro­bationary sentence and a penitentiary term as inappropriate, and is satisfied that the offender would not endanger the com­munity, the judge must then consider, in all cases, whether a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 - See paragraphs 77, 78 and 90 - The court stated that "this follows from Parliament's clear message to the judiciary to reduce the use of incarcer­ation as a sanction" - See paragraph 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Criminal Code, s. 718.2(e), provided that on sentencing all available sanctions other than "imprison­ment" that are reasonable in the circum­stances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders - The Supreme Court of Canada noted an inter­pretive difficulty in the English version of s. 718.2(e) because it appeared as though s. 718.2(e) had no bearing on a sentencing judge's decision whether to impose a conditional sentence (i.e., because a con­ditional sentence was a sentence of "im­prisonment") - The court looked to the French version of the section and adopted a meaning common to both (i.e., the court interpreted the word "imprisonment" in s. 718.2(e) as "incarceration") - Read in this manner, s. 718.2(e) would influence a sen­tencing judge's decision on whether to im­pose a conditional sentence - See para­graphs 91 to 95.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "generally, a conditional sentence will be better than incarceration at achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations to the victim and the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledgment of the harm done to the victim and the community." - See para­graphs 109 and 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "where a combination of both punitive and restorative objectives may be achieved, a conditional sentence will likely be more appropriate than incar­ceration. Where objectives such as denun­ciation and deterrence are particularly pressing, incarceration will generally be the preferable sanction. This may be so not­withstanding the fact that restorative goals might be achieved. However, a conditional sentence may provide sufficient denun­ciation and deterrence, even in cases in which restorative objectives are of lesser importance, depending on the nature of the conditions imposed, the duration of the sentence, and the circumstances of both the offender and the community in which the conditional sentence is to be served." - See paragraph 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "a conditional sentence may be imposed even where there are aggravating circumstances, although the need for denunciation and deterrence will increase in these circumstances." - See paragraph 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "sentencing judges have a wide discretion in the choice of the appropriate sentence. They are entitled to considerable deference from appellate courts. As explained in C.A.M. [S.C.C. 1996] ... 'Put simply, absent an error in principle, failure to consider a relevant factor, or an overemphasis of the appro­priate factors, a court of appeal should only intervene to vary a sentence imposed at trial if the sentence is demonstrably unfit'". - See paragraphs 123 to 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "incarceration will usually provide more denunciation than a conditional sentence, as a conditional sentence is generally a more lenient sen­tence than a jail term of equivalent dur­ation. That said, a conditional sentence can still provide a significant amount of denun­ciation. This is particularly so when onerous conditions are imposed and the duration of the conditional sentence is extended beyond the duration of the jail sentence that would ordinarily have been imposed in the circumstances." - See para­graph 102.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the conditions attached to a conditional sentence should have a punitive aspect - Conditions such as house arrest should be the norm, not the excep­tion - The stigma of a conditional sentence with house arrest should not be underesti­mated - Living in the community under strict conditions where fellow residents are well aware of the offender's criminal misconduct can provide ample denun­ciation in many cases - In certain circum­stances, the shame of encountering mem­bers of the community may make it even more difficult for the offender to serve his or her sentence in the community than in prison - See paragraphs 103 to 105.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the amount of denun­ciation provided by a conditional sentence will be heavily dependent on the circum­stances of the offender, the nature of the conditions imposed, and the community in which the sentence is to be served. As a general matter, the more serious the offence and the greater the need for denun­ciation, the longer and more onerous the conditional sentence should be. However, there may be certain circumstances in which the need for denunciation is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society's condemnation of the offender's conduct." -See paragraphs 106 and 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that judges should be wary of placing too much weight on deterrence when choosing between a conditional sentence and incarceration - The court stated further that a conditional sentence can provide significant deterrence if suf­ficiently punitive conditions are imposed and the public is made aware of the severi­ty of these sentences - "Nevertheless, there may be circumstances in which the need for deterrence will warrant incarceration. This will depend in part on whether the offence is one in which the effects of incarceration are likely to have a real deterrent effect, as well as on the circum­stances of the community in which the offences were committed." - See paragraph 107.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.2

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - Evidence and proof - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "no party is under a burden of proof to estab­lish that a conditional sentence is either appropriate or inappropriate in the circum­stances. The judge should consider all relevant evidence, no matter by whom it is adduced. However, it would be in the offender's best interests to establish elements militating in favour of a con­ditional sentence." - See paragraphs 118 to 122 and 127.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed when a conditional sentence may be appro­priate having regard to the six sentencing objectives set out in s. 718 - In particular the court discussed the restorative objec­tives and the objectives of denunciation, deterrence and separation - See paragraphs 90 to 116.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The accused, age 18, was involved in an automobile accident - A passenger in the accused's car was killed and another driver injured - The accused was driving errati­cally on slippery roads in a vehicle that he knew was not mechanically sound - The accused was seriously injured in the acci­dent, but recovered - He was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dan­gerous driving causing bodily harm - No prior record - The trial judge imposed a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment and declined to grant a conditional sentence - The Manitoba Court of Appeal granted a conditional sentence, holding that the sentencing judge gave undue weight to the objective of denunciation - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judge's decision - Absent evidence that the sen­tence was demonstrably unfit the appellate court should not have interfered - The appellate court erred in holding that the trial judge gave undue weight to denun­ciation - See paragraphs 128 to 132.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - [See fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, fourteenth and fifteenth Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1 and Criminal Law - Topic 5720.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.5

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - Conditions of - [See third, sixth, eighteenth and twentieth Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.5

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - Conditions of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "in the event that a judge chooses to impose a con­ditional sentence, there are five compulsory conditions listed in s. 742.3(1) that must be imposed. The judge also has considerable discretion in imposing optional conditions pursuant to s. 742.3(2). There are a num­ber of principles that should guide the judge in exercising this discretion. First, the conditions must ensure the safety of the community. Second, conditions must be tailored to fit the particular circum­stances of the offender and the offence. The type of conditions imposed will be a function of the sentencing judge's creativi­ty. ... Third, punitive conditions such as house arrest should be the norm, not the exception. Fourth, the conditions must be realistically enforceable. This requires a consideration of the available resources in the community in which the sentence is to be served." - See paragraph 117.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.9

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - Appeals - [See sixteenth Crimi­nal Law - Topic 5720.1 and second Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5833

Sentencing - Considerations - Deterrence - [See twentieth Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1 and first Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.7

Sentencing - Considerations - Denunciation or repudiation of conduct - [See seven­teenth, eighteenth and nineteenth Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1 and first and second Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5865.1

Sentence - Dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm - [See second Crimi­nal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6201

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sen­tence - Powers of appeal court - [See sixteenth Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1 ].

Statutes - Topic 1806

Interpretation - Intrinsic aids - Bilingual statutes - Interpretation of one version by reference to the other - [See twelfth Criminal Law - Topic 5720.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Chaisson (J.L.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1118; 183 N.R. 300; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 81; 419 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 2].

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. [para. 2].

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. [para. 15].

R. v. Taylor (W.B.) (1997), 163 Sask.R. 29; 165 W.A.C. 29; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Ziatas (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 287 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Caja (1977), 36 C.C.C.(2d) 401 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Lavender (1981), 59 C.C.C.(2d) 551 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. L. (1986), 69 A.R. 159; 50 C.R.(3d) 398 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. McDonald (D.P.) (1997), 152 Sask.R. 81; 140 W.A.C. 81; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 418 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Brady (J.R.) (1998), 209 A.R. 321; 160 W.A.C. 321; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 504 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 40].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. J.W. (1997), 99 O.A.C. 161; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Gagnon v. R., [1998] R.J.Q. 2636 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Pierce (M.) (1997), 97 O.A.C. 253; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 23 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Ursel (D.A.) et al. (1997), 96 B.C.A.C. 241; 155 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. O'Keefe (1968), 53 Cr. App. R. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Maheu, [1997] R.J.Q. 410; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 361 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Parker (R.D.R.) (1997), 159 N.S.R.(2d) 166; 468 A.P.R. 166; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Horvath (B.A.), [1997] 8 W.W.R. 357; 152 Sask.R. 277; 140 W.A.C. 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 86].

Kwiatkowsky v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration and Canada (Attorney General), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 856; 45 N.R. 116, refd to. [para. 95].

Gravel v. St-Léonard (City), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 660; 17 N.R. 486, refd to. [para. 95].

Pfizer Co. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 456; 6 N.R. 440, refd to. [para. 95].

Tupper v. R., [1967] S.C.R. 589, refd to. [para. 95].

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada v. Eaton (T.) Co., [1956] S.C.R. 610, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Fleet (M.) (1997), 104 O.A.C. 394; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 457 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. G.W. (1999), 247 N.R. 135; 181 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139; 550 A.P.R. 139 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. McVeigh (1985), 11 O.A.C. 345; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. Biancofiore (N.F.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 292; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. Blakeley (S.) (1998), 111 O.A.C. 144; 40 O.R.(3d) 541 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 129].

R. v. Hollinsky (1995), 103 C.C.C.(3d) 472 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 130].

R. v. R.A.R. (2000), 249 N.R. 322 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 131].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other Acts in consequence thereof, S.C. 1995, c. 22 (Bill C-41), generally [para. 1].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 718, sect. 718.1, sect. 718.2 [para. 10]; sect. 718.2(e) [para. 91]; sect. 718.3 [para. 121]; sect. 732.1(2), sect. 732.1(3), sect. 732.2(5), sect. 733.1, sect. 742.1, sect. 742.3(1), sect. 742.3(2), sect. 742.6(9) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Correctional Service of Canada, A Summary of Analysis of Some Major Inquiries on Corrections - 1938 to 1977 (1977) (1982 Reprint), p. iv [para. 16].

Canada, Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (1973), p. 59 [para. 110].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. IV, 1st Sess., 35th Parl. (September 20, 1994), p. 5873 [paras. 20, 36].

Canada, House of Commons, Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and So­licitor General on its Review of Sen­tencing, Conditional Release and Related Aspects of Corrections, Taking Responsi­bility (1988), p. 75 [para. 16].

Canada, Report of the Canadian Com­mittee on Corrections, Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (1969), p. 314 [para. 16].

Canada, Report of the Canadian Sentenc­ing Commission, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach (1987), pp. xxiii, xxiv [para. 16]; 136, 137 [para. 107].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interprétation des lois (3rd Ed. 1999), pp. 412 to 415 [para. 95].

Gemmell, Jack, The New Conditional Sentencing Regime (1997), 39 Crim. L.Q. 334, p. 337 [para. 53].

Roberts, Julian V., Conditional Sentencing: Sword of Damocles or Pandora's Box? (1997), 2 Can. Crim. L. Rev. 183, gen­erally [para. 39].

Roberts, Julian V., The Hunt for the Paper Tiger: Conditional Sentencing after Brady (1999), 42 Crim. L.Q. 38, pp. 47 to 52 [para. 104]; 65 [para. 111].

Rosenberg, Marc, Recent Developments in Sentencing, Paper prepared for the National Judicial Institute's Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Education Seminar (February 25-26, 1999), p. 63 [para. 117].

Counsel:

Matthew Britton, for the appellant;

Sandra L. Chapman and Wanda Garreck, 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;

Killeen Chapman Garreck, 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, by 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 by Lamer, C.J.C.

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