The cases were heard together on May 25-26, 1999. Judgement was delivered on January 31, 2000. The case R. v. Proulx presented the Court’s main judgement on the general principles on conditional sentences. Some of these principles are: (1) conditional sentences are enacted to reduce reliance on incarceration and increase the use of restorative justice; (2) it is not the same as probation; (3) where an offender breaches a conditional sentence, the offender will serve the balance of sentence in jail; and (4) a conditional sentence need not be of equivalent duration to the service of incarceration that would otherwise have been imposed. In R v. Bunn, it was determined that there was no basis to interfere with the principles of denunciation, and general deterrence could be met by a conditional sentence. In the case R. v. R.A.R., the Court restored the custodial sentence because the sentence was unfit in light of the gravity of the offenses, and the offender’s moral blameworthiness. In R. v. R.N.S., the Court restored the 9 month jail sentence on the basis of the gravity of the offenses and the accused’s level of moral blameworthiness. In these circumstances, denunciation required the imposition of a jail sentence. In the case R. v. L.F.W., the objectives of sentencing could not be met by a conditional sentence because of the strong need for denunciation of sexual offenses committed against children by adults in a position of trust. In addition to these cases, the case of Regina v. Wells is another example of how the general principles surrounding conditional sentences are to be applied in any particular case. Particularly violent and serious offenses will result in imprisonment for Aboriginal offenders as often as for non-Aboriginal offenders, even though there is over-incarceration of Aboriginal offenders in Canadian jails. 15 footnotes