Sentences with phrase «appellate intervention»

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.

«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.

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».

On reviewing when a judge's intervention may prompt appellate intervention, the C.A. cited R v Valley (1986), 13 OAC 89, 26 CCC (3d) 207 (ONCA) for the standard to be applied:

The vast majority of defence counsel will recommend it to a client because a joint submission would certainly be accepted by the court as falling «within the range» that would then insulate the disposition from hostile appellate intervention.

Therefore, application of the Gladue principles is required in every case involving an Aboriginal offender, including breach of an LTSO, and a failure to do so constitutes an error justifying appellate intervention.

Long before the Housen decision, however, it was recognized that where a trial judge misapprehended or failed to appreciate the significance of relevant evidence, there would be an error of law which might warrant appellate intervention.

If the trial judge's summary of the evidence is accurate, and it was open to the judge to accept the plaintiffs» experts» evidence — no misapprehension, nothing else that amounts to a palpable and overriding error, nothing else that amounts to a relevant error of law on the admissibility of evidence — then the result is supported by the evidence and is not (supposed to be) subject to appellate intervention.

[53] The appellant contends that the trial judge's failure to impute income to the respondent was an error justifying appellate intervention, because the respondent's evidence was that she made no attempts to find employment or training.

Justice Martin concluded, at para. 90, that the acquittal was tainted by legal error and appellate intervention was warranted.

A & A Plumbing & Heating Ltd.) Master McDiarmid provided the following feedback about this limitation recognizing that appellate intervention or rules revision may be necessary: