THE PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED BY A COURT OF APPEAL IN THE DETERMINATION OF AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE ARE IDENTIFIED AS PUNISHMENT, DETERRENCE, PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC, AND REHABILITAION OF THE OFFENDER. A CASE EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATES THE CONTENTION THAT A COURT OF APPEAL MUST SHOW COMPASSION AND BE WILLING TO RISK AN ATTEMPT AT OFFENDER REHABILITATION. INSTEAD OF EMPHASIZING PUNISHMENT, RETRIBUTION, AND DETERRENCE, JUDGES SHOULD VIEW REFORMATION AND REHABILITATION AS THE BEST MEANS OF PROTECTING SOCIETY. IN ADDITION, THE COURTS SHOULD RESORT TO ABSOLUTE AND CONDITIONAL DISCHARGES, AS WELL AS THE SERVING OF SENTENCES INTERMITTENTLY IF CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT IT; AND EXERCISE CARE IN NOT MAKING SENTENCES TOO LONG. THE PAROLE BOARD SHOULD BE JUDGED BY ITS SUCCESSES AND NOT BY ITS FAILURES, THE CANADIAN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT BE THE COURT OF LAST RESORT, AND SENTENCE UNIFORMITY MAY NOT BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE REFORM CONSIDERING THE VARYING CONDITIONS IN CANADA. SIX NOTES ARE PROVIDED.