Read as a whole, the reasons of the sentencing judge (which deviate from the three year starting point established in Hajar) expose no error justifying appellate intervention. (supremeadvocacy.ca)
«The majority opinion reflects the persistent disregard in a number of judgments that this Court has issued of the clear and unequivocal directions of the Supreme Court of Canada that emphasize the importance of individualized sentencing and limit appellate intervention in the exercise of sentencing discretion by trial judges. (claytonrice.com)
In R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 the Supreme Court explained that a sentence that falls outside a particular range is not demonstrably unfit... The Court also discussed the limits on appellate intervention and emphasized that the balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors is «strictly within the sentencing judge's discretion». (claytonrice.com)