Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

Appendix 3. A Canadian judgmentVISUPREME COURT OF CANADACitation: R. v. Solowan, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 309, 2008 SCC 62Date: 20081114Docket: 32237Between:Kenneth Stephen Terrance SolowanAppellantandHer Majesty The QueenRespondentCoram: Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.Reasons for Judgment:(paras. 1 to 18)Fish J. (Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. concurring)Appeal heard and judgment rendered: October 8, 2008Reasons delivered: November 14, 2008on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbiaCriminal law — Sentencing — Summary convictions — Crown electing to prosecute hybridoffences by way of summary conviction — Trial judge imposing maximum sentence — Whethertrial judge erred in imposing maximum custodial sentences without first finding that accused was―worst offender who had committed the worst offence‖ — Whether ―worst offender committing theworst offence‖ principle limits imposition of maximum sentence where it is otherwise appropriatein light of sentencing principles — Whether sentences imposed proportionate to offences —Whether Court of Appeal disregarded Crown‘s election to proceed by way of summary conviction— Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‐ 46, Part XXIII, ss. 718.1, 787(1).The accused pleaded guilty to three offences, including two hybrid offences upon which the Crownhad elected to proceed summarily. He was sentenced to a total of 15 months‘ imprisonment. Onappeal, the accused argued that the trial judge had erred in imposing the maximum custodialsentence of six months for each offence without first finding that ―he was the worst offender whohad committed the worst offence‖. In rejecting this submission, the Court of Appeal stated that―[t]he maximum sentence for the offences was not imposed here. It is available only where theCrown elects to proceed by indictment.‖ The Court of Appeal nonetheless found the globalsentence to be excessive and reduced it from 15 to 12 months. The accused now appeals on theground that the Court of Appeal disregarded the Crown‘s election to proceed by way of summaryconviction.