Sentencing Vulnerability: Conceptualizing the Incorporation of Personal Characteristics and Experiences at Sentencing

Authors

Adelina Iftene, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Social inequalities that lead to criminal conduct are often not considered in sentencing; individuals subject to structural inequities receive the same formal sentence as those convicted of like crimes irrespective of the latter’s social advantage. Individual characteristics may also affect how a sentence will be experienced by an individual. While Characteristics and Experience-Sensitive Sentencing (CESS) already exists in various forms and to various degrees in sentencing theory and praxis, a more cohesive, comprehensive, and principled CESS remains wanting. Building on existing approaches, this article locates CESS as a necessary response to equality-based concerns arising from current mainstream sentencing practice. Thus, it is not merely that CESS could be incorporated in sentencing or that judges have the discretion to consider and perhaps should more often consider personal characteristics and experiences at sentencing. Rather, the alignment of sentencing with overarching Charter values and equality-based ideals requires an intentional, cohesive CESS framework that routinely informs the practice of sentencing.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Citation Information

Iftene, Adelina. "Sentencing Vulnerability: Conceptualizing the Incorporation of Personal Characteristics and Experiences at Sentencing." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 61.3 (2025) :
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.4068
https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol61/iss3/4

References

1 Associate Professor and Criminal Justice Program Coordinator, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University. I am grateful for the feedback received on earlier versions of this article from Melvyn Green, Kent Roach, Maria Dugas, Nayha Acharya, and Marie Manikis. Any errors in the article are my own.

2 Statistics Canada, Canada’s Crime Rate: Two Decades of Decline, Catalogue No 11-630-X (Statistics Canada, 2015).

3 Public Safety Canada, Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview 2019 (Public Safety Canada, September 2020) at 41-42, online: www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ccrso-2019/ccrso-2019-en.pdf [perma.cc/P54V-FYB2] [Overview 2019].

4 There are numerous official reports on the increased number of Indigenous and Black people in the criminal justice system and calls for action. See The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) at 170-72; National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, vol 1a (Privy Council Office, 2019) at 635-45 [National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered]; Scot Wortley, Halifax, Nova Scotia: Street Checks Report (Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, 2019); Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent on its Mission to Canada, UNGAOR, 36th Sess, UN Doc A/HRC/36/60/Add.1 (2017) [Report of the Working Group].

5 Public Safety Canada, “Indigenous People in Federal Custody Surpasses 30% Correctional Investigator Issues Statement and Challenge,” Public Safety Canada (21 January 2020), online: www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2020/01/indigenous-people-in-federal-custody-surpasses-30-correctional-investigator-issues-statement-and-challenge.html [perma.cc/92F9-7MKG]; The Correctional Investigator Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2017-2018 (The Correctional Investigator Canada, 2018) at 61, online: oci-bec.gc.ca/sites/default/files/2023-06/annrpt20172018-eng.pdf [perma.cc/MUF5-B5YM]; Overview 2019, supra note 3 at Table C11.

6 The Correctional Investigator Canada & Canadian Human Rights Commission, Aging and Dying in Prison: An Investigation into the Experiences of Older Individuals in Federal Custody, Catalogue No PS104-17/2019E-PDF (The Correctional Investigator Canada, 28 February 2019) at 10, online: www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/publication-pdfs/oth-aut20190228-eng.pdf [perma.cc/4YVT-RPKS] [Aging and Dying in Prison].

7 See e.g. Mental Health Commission of Canada, Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System: ‘What We Heard’: Evidence Summary Report (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2020), online: www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/drupal/2020-08/mental_health_and_the_law_evidence_summary_report_eng.pdf [perma.cc/3DCG-U9SW]; Kirubel Manyazewal Mussie et al, “Challenges in Providing Ethically Competent Health Care to Incarcerated Older Adults with Mental Illness: A Qualitative Study Exploring Mental Health Professionals’ Perspectives in Canada” (2021) 21 BMC Geriatrics 718, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02687-9; Amelia Boughan, “Care or Punishment: A Critique of the Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons in Canadian Prisons” (2020) 1 Global Health Annual Rev 108; The Correctional Investigator Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2018-2019 (The Correctional Investigator Canada, 2019) at 8-14, online: oci-bec.gc.ca/sites/default/files/2023-06/annrpt20182019-eng.pdf [perma.cc/Z7B5-CRBW] [OCI, 2019].

8 See e.g. Aging and Dying in Prisons, supra note 6; Fiona Kouyoumdjian et al, “Health Status of Prisoners in Canada: Narrative Review” (2016) 62 Can Family Physician 215; The Correctional Investigator Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2019-2020 (The Correctional Investigator Canada, 2020) at 2-4, online: oci-bec.gc.ca/sites/default/files/2023-06/annrpt20192020-eng.pdf [perma.cc/VV8N-J2U6] [OCI, 2020].

9 See e.g. Elizabeth Comack, Coming Back to Jail: Women, Trauma and Criminalization (Fernwood, 2018); Flora I Matheson et al, “A Call for Help: Women Offenders’ Reflections on Trauma” (2015) 25 Women & Crim Justice 241, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.909760.

10 See e.g. Marie-Ève Sylvestre, Nicholas Blomley & Céline Bellot, Red Zones: Criminal Law and the Territorial Governance of Marginalized People (Cambridge University Press, 2020); OCI, 2019, supra note 7 at 15-18.

11 See e.g. Martha Paynter et al, “Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes Among Incarcerated Women in Canada: A Scoping Review” (2021) 54 Can J Nursing Research 72, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0844562120985988; The Correctional Investigator Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2020-2021 (The Correctional Investigator Canada, 2021) at 22-24, online: oci-bec.gc.ca/sites/default/files/2023-06/annrpt20202021-eng.pdf [perma.cc/R6GK-WZ42]; Comack, supra note 9; Matheson et al, supra note 9; Kelly Struthers Montford & Kelly Hannah-Moffat, “The Veneers of Empiricism: Gender, Race, and Prison Classification” (2021) 59 Aggression & Violent Behaviour, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101475.

12 See e.g. Struthers Montford & Hannah-Moffat, ibid; The Correctional Investigator Canada, A Case Study in Diversity in Corrections: The Black Inmate Experience in Federal Penitentiaries Final Report, Catalogue No PS104-8/2013E-PDF (The Correctional Investigator Canada, 2013); The Correctional Investigator Canada, Spirit Matters: Aboriginal People and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act: Final Report, Catalogue No PS104-6/2013EPDF (The Correctional Investigator Canada, 2012); OCI, 2020, supra note 8 at 20-21.

13 See e.g. Aging and Dying in Prisons, supra note 6; Adelina Iftene, Punished for Aging: Vulnerability, Rights and Access to Justice in Canadian Penitentiaries (University of Toronto Press, 2019) [Iftene, Punished for Aging]; Mussie et al, supra note 7.

14 See e.g. Sylvestre, Blomley & Bellot, supra note 10; Jason Schnittker & Andrea John, “Enduring Stigma: The Long-Term Effects of Incarceration on Health” (2007) 48 J Health & Soc Behaviour 115, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650704800202; Michelle Lee Maroto, “The Absorbing Status of Incarceration and its Relationship with Wealth Accumulation” (2015) 31 J Quantitative Criminology 207, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9231-8; Stephanie Ewert, Bryan Sykes & Becky Pettit, “The Degree of Disadvantage: Incarceration and Inequality in Education” (2013) 651 Annals Am Academy Political & Soc Science 24, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716213503100; Bruce Western & Becky Pettit, “Incarceration & Social Inequality” (2010) 139 Daedalus 8, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00019.

15 See e.g. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Calls to Actions (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) at paras 30-32; House of Commons, A Call to Action: Reconciliation with Indigenous Women in the Federal Justice and Corrections Systems: Report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women (June 2018) (Chair: Karen Vecchio); Louise Arbour, Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, Catalogue No JS42-73/1996E (Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1996); National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered, supra note 4; Report of the Working Group, supra note 4 at 17-19; Department of Justice Canada, Final Report on the Review of Canada’s Criminal Justice System, Catalogue No J4-94/2019E-PDF (Department of Justice Canada, 2019) at 10-11.

16 For a comprehensive explanation of these concepts, see Andrew von Hirsch, “Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment” (1992) 16 Crime & Justice 55 at 79-85, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/449204.

17 On the difference between responsibility and culpability as components of blameworthiness, see Barbara Hudson, “Punishment, Poverty and Responsibility: The Case for a Hardship Defense” (1999) 8 Soc & Legal Studies 583, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/a010365.

18 Benjamin L Berger, “Proportionality and the Experience of Punishment” in David Cole & Julian Roberts, Sentencing in Canada: Essays in Law, Policy, and Practice (Irwin Law, 2020) 368 at 386 [Berger, “Experience of Punishment”].

19 John D Castiglione, “Qualitative and Quantitative Proportionality: A Specific Critique of Retributivism” (2010) 71 Ohio St LJ 71.

20 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Criminal Code].

21 See e.g. Adam J Kolber, “The Subjective Experience of Punishment” (2009) 109 Colum L Rev 182 [Kolber, “Subjective Experience”]; Adam J Kolber, “The Comparative Nature of Punishment” (2009) 89 BUL Rev 1565 [Kolber, “Comparative Nature”]; Adam J Kolber, “Unintentional Punishment” (2012) 18 Leg Theory 1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325211000218 [Kolber, “Unintentional Punishment”]; John Bronsteen, Christopher Buccafusco & Jonathan Masur, “Happiness and Punishment” (2009) 76 U Chicago L Rev 1037 [Bronsteen, Buccafusco & Masur, “Happiness”]; John Bronsteen, Christopher Buccafusco & Jonathan Masur, “Retribution and the Experience of Punishment” (2010) 98 Cal L Rev 1463 [Bronsteen, Buccafusco & Masur, “Retribution”]; Berger, “Experience of Punishment,” supra note 18; Benjamin L Berger, “Sentencing and the Salience of Pain and Hope” (Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No 17, 2015), online: digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=olsrps [perma.cc/A729-A77E] [Berger, “Pain and Hope”].

22 Darrell Steffensmeier, Jeffery Ulmer & John Kramer have referred to the same factors as “extralegal factors,” which incorporate characteristics such as race, age, gender, socio-economic status, and sexual orientation. These are contrasted with what they call “legal factors”—factors which have an established role in sentencing and which are strictly related to the offence or the criminal activity of the individual such as prior convictions, statutory mitigating or aggravating factors, and mandatory minimum sentences. See Darrell Steffensmeier, Jeffery Ulmer & John Kramer, “The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male” (1998) 36 Criminology 763, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x. I maintain the same conceptual distinction between the “regular” sentencing factors and socio-demographic factors. However, the term “extralegal factors” is not appropriate in Canada, where socio-demographic factors—to the extent to which they impact equality values, should also be seen as legal—as equality rights are entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

23 Ibid. On the role of socio-demographic factors and unconscious bias in sentencing, see also Kathleen Daly & Michael Tonry, “Gender, Race, and Sentencing” (1997) 22 Crime & Justice 201, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/449263; Jeffrey S Nowacki, “An Intersectional Approach to Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Age Disparity in Federal Sentencing Outcomes: An Examination of Policy Across Time Periods” (2017) 17 Criminology & Crim Justice 97, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816642502.

24 See e.g. Leslie Paik, “Critical Perspectives on Intersectionality and Criminology: Introduction” (2017) 21 Theoretical Criminology 4, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480616677495; Marie-Ève Sylvestre, “The (Re)Discovery of the Proportionality Principle in Sentencing in Ipeelee: Constitutionalization and the Emergence of Collective Responsibility” (2013) 63 SCLR 461 [Sylvestre, “Sentencing in Ipeelee”]; Marie-Ève Sylvestre, “Rethinking Criminal Responsibility for Poor Offenders: Choice, Monstrosity, and the Logic of Practice” (2010) 55 McGill LJ 771, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1000785ar.

25 See Allan Manson, The Law of Sentencing (Irwin Law, 2001) at 41-48 [Manson, The Law of Sentencing].

26 Criminal Code, supra note 20, s 718.

27 See e.g. Anthony N Doob & Cheryl Marie Webster, “Sentence Severity and Crime: Accepting the Null Hypothesis” (2003) 30 Crime & Justice 143 at 160, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/652230; Chin Liew Ten, Crime, Guilt and Punishment: A Philosophical Introduction (Clarendon Press, 1987) at 7, 36-37; Andrew von Hirsch et al, Criminal Deterrence and Sentencing Severity (Hart, 1999).

28 See e.g. Ten, ibid at 37; Francis A Allen, The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose (Yale University Press, 1981); Anthony Bottoms, “Empirical Research Relevant to Sentencing Framework: Reform and Rehabilitation” in Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth & Julian Roberts, eds, Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy, 3rd ed (Hart, 2009) 16 at 16-17.

29 See Allan Manson et al, Sentencing and Penal Policy in Canada: Cases, Materials, and Commentary, 4th ed (Emond, 2023) at 14.

30 For a discussion on two main types of retributivism, “just desert” and limited retributivism, see Malcolm Thorburn & Allan Manson, “The Sentencing Theory Debate: Convergence in Outcomes, Divergence in Reasoning” (2007) 10 New Crim L Rev 278, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2007.10.2.278. For extensive discussions on “just desert” see Andrew von Hirsch, Past or Future Crimes: Deservedness and Dangerousness in the Sentencing of Criminals (Rutgers University Press, 1985) [von Hirsch, Past or Future Crimes]; Andrew von Hirsch, Censure and Sanctions (Oxford University Press, 1993).

31 Denunciation of the offending behaviour is, to various degrees, a concept present in both retributivist and utilitarian schools of thought. Allan Manson offers that denunciation does not necessarily belong to one or another philosophy, but rather in itself forms the basis of a communicative theory; see Manson, The Law of Sentencing, supra note 25 at 51-54.

32 The Canadian Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach – Report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission (Supply and Services Canada, 1987) at 129-31.

33 House of Commons, “Taking Responsibility”: Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General on its Review of Sentencing, Conditional Release and Related Aspects of Corrections (August 1988) (Chair: David Daubney) at 243.

34 Criminal Code, supra note 20, s 718.1. For a history of sentencing reforms in Canada and the role gained by retributivism see Manson, The Law of Sentencing, supra note 25 at 14-29.

35 See e.g. R v M (CA), [1996] 1 SCR 500 at paras 78-80; Re BC Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR 486 at 533; R v Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at paras 53-54; R v Martineau, [1990] 2 SCR 633 at paras 58, 89-90.

36 See e.g. Marie Manikis, “The Principle of Proportionality in Sentencing: A Dynamic Evolution and Multiplication of Conceptions” (2022) 59 Osgoode Hall LJ 587, DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3812; Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg & Netanel Dagan, “Retributarianism: A New Individualization of Punishment” (2019) 23 Crim Law & Philosophy 129, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-018-9460-2.

37 See Jeremy Bentham, The Rationale of Punishment (Robert Heward, 1830) at 37-38.

38 See Kolber, “Subjective Experience,” supra note 21 at 184.

39 See Lea Johnston, “Vulnerability and Just Desert: A Theory of Sentencing and Mental Illness” (2013) 103 J Crim L & Criminology 147 at 188.

40 See e.g. Schnittker & John, supra note 14; Jason Schnittker, Michael Massoglia & Christopher Uggen, “Out and Down: Incarceration and Psychiatric Disorders” (2012) 53 J Health & Soc Behavior 448, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146512453928; Kouyoumdjian et al, supra note 8; Maroto, supra note 14; Ewert, Sykes & Pettit, supra note 14; Western & Pettit, supra note 14.

41 On this point see also Castiglione, supra note 19.

42 See Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Vintage Books, 1995) at 231-56.

43 See The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison (Princeton University Press, 1958) at 63-83.

44 David Garland, “Problem of the Body in Modern State Punishment” (2011) 78 Soc Research 767 at 768, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2011.0033.

45 Ibid.

46 See Dirk Van Zyl Smit & Andrew Ashworth, “Disproportionate Sentences as Human Rights Violations” (2004) 67 Mod L Rev 541 at 548, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2004.00499.x.

47 Ibid at 542; Johnston, supra note 39 at 216.

48 Jesper Ryberg, The Ethics of Proportionate Sentencing: A Critical Investigation (Kluwer Academic, 2004) at 108.

49 See e.g. Kolber, “Unintentional Punishment,” supra note 21 at 2; Van Zyl Smit & Ashworth, supra note 46 at 548; Lisa Kerr, “Sentencing Ashley Smith: How Prison Conditions Relate to the Aims of Punishment” (2017) 32 CJLS 187 at 206, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2017.14; Berger, “Experience of Punishment,” supra note 18 at 374.

50 See e.g. Kolber, “Subjective Experience,” supra note 21 at 183-84; Kolber, “Comparative Nature,” supra note 21 at 1582; Bronsteen, Buccafusco, & Masur, “Happiness,” supra note 21; Ryberg, supra note 48 at 105.

51 See Bronsteen, Buccafusco, & Masur, “Retribution,” supra note 21 at 1466; Kolber, “Comparative Nature,” supra note 21 at 1601; Kolber, “Subjective Experience,” supra note 21 at 207-208.

52 See Andrew von Hirsch & Andrew Ashworth, Proportionate Sentencing: Exploring the Principles (Oxford University Press, 2005) at 81, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272600.001.0001; Andrew Ashworth, “Prisons, Proportionality and Recent Penal History” (2017) 80 Mod L Rev 473 at 483.

53 See Johnston, supra note 39 at 186.

54 See Ashworth, supra note 52 at 487.

55 See von Hirsch & Ashworth, supra note 52 at 81.

56 See Ashworth, supra note 52 at 482-83; von Hirsch & Ashworth, supra note 52 at 176-77.

57 See von Hirsch & Ashworth, supra note 52 at 174-76; Antony Duff, Punishment, Communication, and Community (Oxford University Press, 2003) at 140.

58 Andrew Ashworth & Elaine Player, “Sentencing, Equal Treatment, and the Impact of Sanctions” in Andrew Ashworth & Martin Wasik, eds, Fundamentals of Sentencing Theory: Essays in Honour of Andrew von Hirsch (Oxford University Press, 1998) 251 at 261. On how “just desert” scholars have come to incorporate the equal impact principle in their theories, see Thorburn & Manson, supra note 30 at 290-303.

59 Criminal Code, supra note 20, ss 718.2(d)-(e). Some have debated whether the principle of restraint or formal parity should have priority. See Jonathan Rudin & Kent Roach, “Broken Promises: A Response to Stenning and Roberts’ ‘Empty Promises’” (2002) 65 Sask L Rev 3 at 28, DOI: http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1215192 [Rudin & Roach, “Broken Promises”].

60 For a discussion on the difference between quantitative and qualitative proportionality, see Castiglione, supra note 19.

61 See generally Garland, supra note 44.

62 Berger, “Pain and Hope,” supra note 21 at 19.

63 Benjamin L Berger has provided comprehensive reviews of the older case law that gives legitimacy to a subjective approach in practice. See e.g. Berger, “Experience of Punishment,” supra note 18 at 384-85. See also Kerr, supra note 49 at 201-205.

64 See [1987] 1 SCR 1045 at para 57 [Smith].

65 See 2013 SCC 15 at paras 10-11.

66 See also R v Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494 [Fabbro].

67 2013 MBQB 225 at paras 48-49.

68 1973 CanLII 1434 (ONCA) at 100.

69 1991 ABCA 307 at para 4.

70 2004 CanLII 17719 (ONCA) at para 32.

71 2005 CanLII 5398 (ONCA) at para 3.

72 2005 BCCA 51 at paras 10, 13.

73 See e.g. R v Donnelly, 2014 ONSC 6472; R v Doyle, 2015 ONCJ 492; R v Nguyen, 2017 ONCJ 442; R v Persad, 2020 ONSC 188.

74 Chris Rudnicki, Lisa Kerr, and Kristy-Anne Dubé have mapped the inconsistent treatment of COVID-19 at sentencing. See Chris Rudnicki, “Confronting the Experience of Imprisonment in Sentencing: Lessons from the COVID-19 Jurisprudence” (2021) 99 Can Bar Rev 469; Lisa Kerr & Kristy-Anne Dubé, “Adjudicating the Risks of Confinement: Bail and Sentencing During COVID-19” (2020) 64 Crim Reports (7th) 311.

75 See e.g. R v Hearns, 2020 ONSC 2365; R v Morgan, 2020 ONCA 279; R v Fairbarn, 2020 ONCA 784; R v Dawson, 2021 NSCA 29; R v Doering, 2020 ONSC 5618; R v Marsan, 2020 ONCJ 638; R v Rudolph, 2021 NUCJ 23.

76 See e.g. R v Lariviere, 2020 ONCA 324; R v Baptiste, 2020 QCCQ 1813; R v Greer, 2021 BBCA 148.

77 2018 SCC 34 at paras 47-48 [Suter].

78 Ibid at para 47.

79 Ibid at para 48.

80 For a discussion on ranges and tariffs see Manson, The Law of Sentencing, supra note 25 at 63-66.

81 See e.g. R v Arcand, 2010 ABCA 363.

82 Suter, supra note 77 at para 25.

83 Ibid at para 47.

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid at paras 49-50.

86 Ibid at para 56.

87. Supra note 66.

88 2022 BCCA 1 [Salehi].

89 See Fabbro, supra note 66 at para 27.

90 Ibid at paras 20-26.

91 Salehi, supra note 88.

92 Ibid at para 65.

93 Ibid at paras 65, 66.

94 R v Woods, 2003 BCCA 539; R v Moncini, 1975 CanLII 1461 (BCCA); R v Oates 1992 CanLII 7130 (NLCA) ; R v Andrews, 2004 MBCA 60.

95. 2018 BCCA 171.

96 2015 BCCA 167 at para 39.

97 2011 BCCA 9 at paras 86-86.

98 2013 BCCS 368 at para 13.

99 2000 CanLII 16973 (ONCA).

100 Salehi, supra note 88 at paras 93-95.

101 Ibid at para 64.

102 See Adelina Iftene, “The Case for a New Statutory Compassionate Release Provision” (2017) 54 Alta L Rev 929, DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/alr783; Adelina Iftene & Jocelyn Downie, “End-of-Life Care for Federally Incarcerated Individuals in Canada” (2020) 14 McGill JL & Health 1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3857727; Aging and Dying in Prison, supra note 6 at 59.

103 See e.g. Iftene, Punished for Aging, supra note 13 at 57.

104 While Suter does not expressly refer to the impact of incarceration on ill offenders as “collateral consequences,” it does identify health as a personal characteristic of potential relevance in situations where it affects the experiential harshness of the sentence. See Suter, supra note 77 at para 57.

105 Ibid at para 56.

106 2021 SCC 46 [Parranto].

107 Ibid at para 16. For a discussion on what starting points are, their history in Canada, the potential benefit they and ranges have, and the risk they present in usurping the individualization of a sentence, see Manson, The Law of Sentencing, supra note 25 at 66-74.

108 Parranto, supra note 106 at paras 133-36.

109 Ibid at para 40. This is a similar point to the one made by the SCC a year earlier in R v Friesen. In this case, the SCC held that ranges and starting points are guidelines and that courts of appeal cannot treat departure from them or failure of the sentencing judge to refer to them as an error in principle. See R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at paras 35-37.

110 Parranto, supra note 106 at para 40.

111 2021 NSCA 62 at para 132 [Anderson].

112 On this see Manson, The Law of Sentencing, supra note 25 at 74.

113 [1999] 1 SCR 688 [Gladue].

114 2012 SCC 13 [Ipeelee].

115 See e.g. Sylvestre, “Sentencing in Ipeelee,” supra note 24.

116 Kent Roach & Jonathan Rudin, “Sentencing Indigenous Offenders: From Gladue to the Present and Beyond” in David Cole & Julian Roberts, eds, Sentencing in Canada: Essays in Law, Policy, and Practice (Irwin Law, 2020) 226 at 226-27 [Roach & Rudin, “Sentencing Indigenous Offenders”].

117 Anderson, supra note 111 at paras 146-48.

118 2021 ONCA 680 [Morris]. This decision was followed in R v Davis, 2021 ONSC 8163 [Davis].

119 See Morris, ibid at paras 76-78.

120. Ibid at 97-99.

121 Fabbro, supra note 66.

122 Anderson, supra note 111 at paras 123-25.

123 See Morris, supra note 118 at paras 83-86.

124 Ibid at paras 108-10.

125 See Anderson, supra note 111 at para 132.

126 On the differences between Anderson and Morris, see Steve Coughlan, Adelina Iftene & Robert J Currie, The Annual Review of Criminal Law 2021 (Thomson Reuters, 2022) at 512-17; Tim Quigley, “Anderson and Morris: Reducing the Disproportionate Imprisonment of Afro-Canadian and Indigenous People” (2021) 74 Criminal Reports 440. For a discussion on IRCAs, see Maria C Dugas, “Committing to Justice: The Case for Impact of Race and Culture Assessments in Sentencing African Canadian Offenders” (2020) 43 Dal LJ 103.

127 The importance of acknowledging this background in sentencing has been recognized by the federal government, which in 2021 announced the creation of a fund that would cover the cost of IRCAs for accused of African descent. See Department of Justice Canada, News Release, “Pre-Sentencing Impact of Race and Culture Assessments Receive Government of Canada Funding” (13 August 2021), online: www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2021/08/pre-sentencing-impact-of-race-and-culture-assessments-receive-government-of-canada-funding.html [perma.cc/5S85-9M9P].

128 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

129 Smith, supra note 64.

130 Supra note 128, s 7.

131 Kent Roach, “Smith and the Supreme Court: Implications for Sentencing Policy and Reform” (1989) 11 SCLR 433 at 434.

132 Ibid.

133 Ibid at 437.

134 Julie Desrosiers, “Peines minimales et principes de justice fondamentale: une lecture comparée des articles 12 et 7 de la Charte” (2013) 17 Can Crim L Rev 121 at 125; Sylvestre, “Sentencing in Ipeelee,” supra note 24 at 465-66.

135 Ipeelee, supra note 114 at para 68.

136 Supra note 128, s 7.

137 Sylvestre, “Sentencing in Ipeelee,” supra note 24 at 471.

138 Ibid at 471-80. For broader context, see Marie-Ève Sylvestre, “The Redistributive Potential of Section 7 of the Charter: Incorporating Socio-economic Context in Criminal Law and in the Adjudication of Rights” (2011) 42 Ottawa L Rev 389.

139 On the challenges with consistent implementation of Gladue and Ipeelee, see Roach & Rudin, “Sentencing Indigenous Offenders,” supra note 116 at 234-37, 246-48.

140 Ibid at 227.

141 For a strong conceptualization of the role of s 12 in sentencing, see Lisa Kerr & Benjamin Berger, “Methods and Severity: The Two Tracks of Section 12” (2020) 94 SCLR 235, DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1382.

142 See Charter, supra note 128, s 15.

143 See e.g. Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143 at 165; Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 SCR 497 at 524; R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 at para 14 [Kapp]; Fraser v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28 at paras 47, 55 [Fraser].

144 See Jonathan Rudin, “Tell It Like It Is – An Argument for the Use of Section 15 over Section 7 to Challenge Discriminatory Criminal Legislation” (2017) 64 Crim LQ 317.

145 Ibid at 324.

146 Ibid at 333.

147 See Rudin & Roach, “Broken Promises,” supra note 59.

148 2020 ONCA 478 at para 70.

149 See R v Sharma, 2022 SCC 39 [Sharma].

150 Ibid at paras 27-83.

151 Ibid at paras 220, 248.

152 The judgment of the majority is unexpected and disappointing especially in light of Fraser (see supra note 143) and the very significant record showing the disproportionate effects that mandatory punishment regimes have on Indigenous people and how they impact the ability of judges to apply the Gladue principles. This decision is also disappointing in its s 7 analysis, where the majority found that the impugned provision was not overbroad. This position, that a certain punishment reflects the seriousness of a category of offences and, thus, cannot be overbroad, is surprising. The prescribed punishment may very well reflect the gravity of the category of offences, but that is not the sole consideration that should be reflected by a given sentence or when assessing the constitutionality of a sentencing provision. A week prior to the release of Sharma, the SCC in R v Ndhlovu, 2022 SCC 38 ran a s 7 analysis on the provision mandating registration in the Sex Offender Information Registry Act (SOIRA) for sex offenders and found that the provision was overbroad because not all sex offenders present an increased risk of reoffending. The risk varies based on the offenders’ personal circum