R. v. Stroshein (K.B.),

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Tallis, Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2001 SKCA 20
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Date: 07 December 2000

R. v. Stroshein (K.B.) (2001), 203 Sask.R. 183 (CA);

    240 W.A.C. 183

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.072

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Kyle Brendon Stroshein (respondent)

(No. 104; 2001 SKCA 20)

Indexed As: R. v. Stroshein (K.B.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Tallis, Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A.

February 9, 2001.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery. The sentencing judge imposed an 18 month conditional sentence, the conditions of which included six months of electronic monitoring, $250 restitution and 240 hours of community service. A 10 year firearms prohibition order was also imposed. The Crown appealed, arguing that the conditional sentence was inconsistent with the funda­mental purposes and principles of sentencing.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Van­cise, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The court imposed a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment in addition to the six months of electronic monitoring which had already been served.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.9

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - Appeals - [See Criminal Law -Topic 6201 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5801

Sentencing - Uniformity - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed a Crown appeal from a conditional sentence imposed for a robbery - The court noted, inter alia, that no case had been cited where a condi­tional sentence was permitted for armed robbery involving a similar level of vio­lence and premeditation - The court stated that "[t]his factor must not be overemphasized for fear of precluding the use of conditional sentences at all on the basis that such a sentencing tool has not been used before. Nonetheless, the fact that no comparable case has been cited to us must be given some weight and goes to the fitness of the sentence ... Similarly, as this jurisdiction positions itself with others in Canada in an effort to achieve uniformity of sentencing, we note that other Courts of Appeal have overturned conditional sen­tences imposed in similar circumstances ... This is not a return to an emphasis on parity alone where one focuses on the sentence required for a particular offence which the Supreme Court of Canada iden­tified as a possible danger of starting point sentences ... It is, rather, one factor to be considered" - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 5806.1

Sentencing - Sentence parity - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5801 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5837

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Mitigating circumstances - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed a Crown appeal from a conditional sentence imposed for a robbery - The court stated, inter alia, that the sentencing judge placed too much emphasis on the fact that the accused was doing well in university - The court stated that "[t]his was, after all, what any objective observer would have said in relation to [the accused] before the offence was committed, and is, therefore, not a mitigating factor, per se" - See paragraph 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents (incl. start­ing point principle) - [See Criminal Law -Topic 5801 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5855

Sentence - Robbery - The accused and a co-accused robbed a pizza place - The co-accused carried a knife and forced the lone employee to turn over $500 - The accused then sprayed the employee with pepper spray to facilitate their escape - The accused pleaded guilty to robbery - Prior record - On probation at the time of the offence - The sentencing judge imposed an 18 month conditional sentence, the condi­tions of which included six months of electronic monitoring and $250 restitution -A 10 year firearms prohibition order was also imposed - The Crown appealed, argu­ing that the condi­tional sentence was in­consis­tent with the funda­mental purposes and principles of sentenc­ing - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and imposed a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment in addition to the six months of electronic monitoring which had already been served - The court stated that the need to empha­size protec­tion of the public with respect to the offence of armed robbery required it to emphasize deterrence and denunciation more strongly than the sentencing judge did in this case -See paragraphs 1 to 20.

Criminal Law - Topic 6201

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sen­tence - Powers of appeal court - The Sas­katchewan Court of Appeal stated that "a court of appeal can only intervene in lim­ited circumstances to overturn a sen­tencing judge's decision permitting a sen­tence to be served in the community ... a court of appeal intervenes only if the sen­tencing judge has erred in principle or the sentence is demonstrably unfit ... The standard of review permits intervention when an error in principle has been made, but it would be rare for a court to inter­vene to increase the severity of the punish­ment absent a finding that the sentence was also demonstrably unfit. A court of appeal weighs the fitness of sentence, but given the unique position and primary role of sentencing judges, courts of appeal are slow to intervene, even when errors of principle are made, unless the sentence can be said to be de­monstrably unfit" - See paragraphs 3 to 4.

Cases Noticed:

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. 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; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327; 46 C.R.(4th) 269, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. MacDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 436, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Laliberte (M.R.) (2000), 189 Sask.R. 190; 216 W.A.C. 190; 31 C.R.(5th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Banda (C.D.) (2000), 199 Sask.R. 118; 232 W.A.C. 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. G.W., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 597; 247 N.R. 135; 181 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139; 550 A.P.R. 139; 178 D.L.R.(4th) 76, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Pelly (1992), 100 Sask.R. 84; 18 W.A.C. 84 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Johnson (K.M.) (1992), 100 Sask.R. 114; 18 W.A.C. 114 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Desjarlais (K.R.) (1996), 141 Sask.R. 165; 114 W.A.C. 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Wiberg (C.A.), (1997), 158 Sask.R. 246; 153 W.A.C. 246 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Sangwais (L.D.) (2000), 189 Sask.R. 291; 216 W.A.C. 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Bardwell (G.O.) (1997), 209 A.R. 71; 160 W.A.C. 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Longaphy (J.F.) (2000), 189 N.S.R.(2d) 102; 590 A.P.R. 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. McEwen (J.P.) (1997), 98 B.C.A.C. 89; 161 W.A.C. 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Morrissette (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 307 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 4].

R. v. Wenarchuk (1982), 15 Sask.R. 240; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 169 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 5].

R. v. Horvath (B.A.) (1997), 152 Sask.R. 277; 140 W.A.C. 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Mafi (K.) (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 221; 217 W.A.C. 221; 142 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 13].

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; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 14].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 44, footnote 18].

R. v. Bunn (T.A.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 183; 249 N.R. 296; 142 Man.R.(2d) 256; 212 W.A.C. 256; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 505, refd to. [para. 44, footnote 20].

R. v. Maheu (1997), 116 C.C.C.(3d) 361 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 27].

R. v. Proulx (J.D.K.) (1997), 123 Man.R.(2d) 107; 159 W.A.C. 107; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 68 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 29].

R. v. L.F.W. (1997), 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 115; 481 A.P.R. 115; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 29].

R. v. R.A.R. (1997), 123 Man.R.(2d) 91; 159 W.A.C. 91; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 558 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 29].

R. v. Gagnon (1998), 130 C.C.C.(3d) 194 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 29].

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. 52, footnote 29].

R. v. Ursel (D.A.) et al. (1997), 96 B.C.A.C. 241; 155 W.A.C. 241; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 29].

R. v. J.W. (1997), 99 O.A.C. 161; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 29].

R. v. Wellington (S.) (1999), 117 O.A.C. 283; 132 C.C.C.(3d) 470 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 29].

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. 52, footnote 29].

R. v. D.J.J. (1999), 172 Sask.R. 182; 185 W.A.C. 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 29].

R. v. Wilmott, [1967] 1 C.C.C. 172 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 36].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 57, footnote 38].

R. v. McDonald (1997), 152 Sask.R. 81; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 418 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 42].

R. v. Van de Wiele (A.), [1997] 3 W.W.R. 477; 152 Sask.R. 65; 140 W.A.C. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 43].

R. v. Taylor (W.B.) (1997), 163 Sask.R. 29; 165 Sask.R. 29; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 45].

R. v. Cappo (J.D.) (1994), 120 Sask.R. 309; 68 W.A.C. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 47].

R. v. Alexson (1991), 97 Sask.R. 77; 12 W.A.C. 77 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 48].

R. v. Stonechild (J.) (1995), 128 Sask.R. 210; 85 W.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 49].

R. v. Key (D.S.) (1996), 152 Sask.R. 31; 140 W.A.C. 31 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 50].

R. v. Wiberg (C.A.) (1997), 158 Sask.R. 246; 153 W.A.C. 246 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 51].

R. v. Sangwais (L.D.) (2000), 189 Sask.R. 291; 216 W.A.C. 291 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 52].

R. v. Predenchuk (D.R.) (2000), 199 Sask.R. 264; 232 W.A.C. 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 53].

R. v. McLeod (R.G.) (1993), 109 Sask.R. 8; 42 W.A.C. 8; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 58].

R. v. Brown (A.K.) (1997), 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 188; 481 A.P.R. 188; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 147 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 63].

R. v Knoblauch (W.L.) (2000), 262 N.R. 1; 271 A.R. 1; 234 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), red to. [para. 105, footnote 68].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Beccaria, C., Of Crimes and Punishments (1996), p. 49 [para. 56, footnote 35].

Canada, Government of, Sentencing, February 1984, p. 32 [para. 41, footnote 16].

Manson, A., The Law of Sentencing (2001), generally [para. 56, footnote 34].

Von Hirsch, A., Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment (1992), 16 Crime & Just. 55, p. 56 [para. 56, footnote 37].

Counsel:

E.J. Neufeld, Q.C., for the Crown;

M.P. Bodnar, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 7, 2000, before Tallis, Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on February 9, 2001, when the following opinions were filed:

Jackson, J.A. (Tallis, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 20;

Vancise, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 21 to 109.