Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

172worst offence‖ does not operate when a maximum sentence is appropriate bearing in mindthe principles set out in the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985 and in other case law).After stating the facts of the case, the judge should identify the ―Issues‖ to beaddressed, i.e. the arguments on which the analysis and the ratio decidendi (the reasons forthe decision) will be based. The issues are raised in a logical order, usually in the order ofimportance to the conclusion. In the ―Issues‖ section of the aforementioned judgment, thejudge cites the impugned passage of the text of the Court of Appeal in which it is stated thatmaximum sentences are not imposed when the Crown proceeds summarily. However, theCrown proceeded summarily and the accused received maximum custodial sentence for oneof the offences. The judge explains that the issue is whether the Court of Appeal erred inlaw in affirming that sentence. He adds that, from his point of view, the Court of Appealdid not err and proceeds to justify his opinion.The ―Analysis‖ comes after the ―Issues‖. Here, the judge states the legal principlesthat should be applied to the facts of the case. This is the ratio decidendi, the reason for thedecision. Thus, a logical reasoning must follow in reaching a decision. For instance, in the―Analysis‖ section of the aforementioned judgment, the judge explains that a fit sentencefor a hybrid offence by way of summary conviction should follow the principles set out inthe Criminal Code for that mode of procedure (these principles would be different were thedefendant to be prosecuted as indictment).Finally, the ―Conclusion‖ is the last part of the judgment, in which the judgesexpress their decision. Conclusions can be in favour or against the author of the appeal. Thejudges may dismiss an appeal or give the judgment and award the process or otherproceedings that the court whose decision is appealed against should have given orawarded. Verbs used to express the decision of the judges are performative because theyare legally binding actions reflecting the prescriptive authority of judges. Formulations of