skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 194112 Find in a Library
Title: Supreme Court of Canada Speaks on Conditional Sentences (From The Changing Face of Conditional Sentencing, P 53-58, 2000, Canada Department of Justice)
Author(s): Gregory J. Tweney
Date Published: 2000
Page Count: 6
Sponsoring Agency: Canada Department of Justice
Ottawa ON K1A 0H8, Canada
Sale Source: Canada Department of Justice
Justice Bldg. Kent St., at Wellington St.
Ottawa ON K1A 0H8,
Type: Conference Material
Format: Book (Softbound)
Language: English; French
Country: Canada
Annotation: This document presents five cases that raised the question of how to interpret and apply the new conditional sentence provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code.
Abstract: 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
Main Term(s): Canada; Sentencing disparity
Index Term(s): Alternatives to institutionalization; Judicial discretion; Sentencing reform; Sentencing trends; Sentencing/Sanctions; Supervised liberty
Note: See NCJ-194108-111, and NCJ-194113-115 for related chapters.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.