R v Noganosh, 2017 ONSC 131

In the 2017 case of R v Noganosh ONSC 131 the offender pleaded guilty to dangerous driving resulting in the death of two victims, and the bodily harm of a third victim. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that, although a 12-month period of incarceration was relatively short, combined with a substantial community service order this sentence served the objectives of restorative justice and rehabilitation.

R v R.L.W., 2013 BCCA 50

In the 2013 case of R v RLW BCCA 50 the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed an application to appeal a sentence following a conviction for sexual assault, threats and possession of child pornography. The court found that although the sentence was similar to a sentence that would have been imposed on a non-Aboriginal offender, that did not mean that restorative justice had not been appropriately considered (para. 40).

R v Benedict, 2014 ONSC 6898

In the 2014 case of R v Benedict ONSC 6898 the defendant, while serving a conditional sentence, committed an aggravated robbery. The Ontario Court of Justice held that the objectives of deterrence and denunciation had satisfactorily been met by a period of 16 months’ jail that occurred between the date of the offence, when the conditional sentence expired, and the trial (para. 15). The court therefore found that a suspended sentence and a three-year probation order, with conditions, was appropriate.

R v Schell, 2015 ONSC 6013

In the 2015 case of R v Schell ONSC 6013 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided upon a ‘creative’ sentence of three months to be served intermittently, in line with the principles in Gladue and Ipeelee (para. 40). The defendant, who had committed a robbery and assault, was eager to get back to work, and was likely to find work relatively quickly in his relevant field. The court also considered that employment was very important for the progress and self-esteem of the offender (para. 41).

R v Jacko, 2010 ONCA 452

The appellant was convicted of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon in an aboriginal community.

In the 2010 case of R v Jacko ONCA 452 the Court of Appeal for Ontario reflected on the importance of both considering restorative justice in sentencing, and ensuring that restorative justice has tangible outcomes in sentencing.

Watt J.A highlights at (para. 86) that restorative justice sentencing objectives may include

R v Pouce Coupe, 2014 BCCA 255

In the 2014 case of R v Pouce Coupe BCCA 255 the Court of Appeal for British Columbia found that the sentencing judge was correct in concluding that the sentence should not include the proposed restorative justice plan (para. 27). The appellant’s family and community continued to believe that he was innocent, despite the conviction for sexual assault, therefore ‘the restorative justice plan would have had minimal rehabilitative effect’ (para. 28).

R v Chanalquay, 2015 SKCA 141

In the 2015 case of R v Chanalquay SKCA 141 the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal concluded that the sentencing judge misapplied the concepts in Gladue and Ipeelee. The offender was convicted of sexual assault. The Court concluded that although sexual assault is a serious crime, ‘the sentencing judge should have asked himself how a restorative justice approach might have allowed him to reduce or limit the term of imprisonment…while still meeting the sentencing objectives of the case before him’ (para. 54).

R v Kayaitok, 2014 NUCJ 11

In the 2014 case of R v Kayaitok NUCJ 11 the male offender murdered his female partner with whom he had been in an off-and-on relationship with for 14 years and with whom he had four children. The Nanavut Court of Justice confirmed the Gladue principle (para. 38)

In sentencing aboriginal offenders, a court must try to give the greatest weight to the principles of restorative justice and less weight to the principles of deterrence and denunciation and separation.

R v Poarau [2016] NZHC 443 (15 March 2016)

In the 2016 case of R v Poarau NZHC 443 the High Court of New Zealand held that there ‘can be no justification’ for a discount for a successful restorative justice process, and a further discount for remorse. Alternatively, the outcome of a restorative justice process should be considered ‘in the context of assessing’ whether the offender is ‘genuinely remorseful’ (para. 49). In such a serious case involving family violence and the use of a weapon, the court stressed that the purposes of deterrence and denunciation must remain significant (para. 27).

Police v Paki [2014] NZHC 3112 (5 December 2014)

In the 2014 case of Police v Paki NZHC 3112 the appellant was discharged without conviction on two charges of burglary and one of theft. He was also convicted and discharged on a drink driving offence. This lenient sentence resulted from an extremely positive restorative justice report where the High Court of New Zealand held that the appellant had done everything possible to ‘put things right’ (para. 2). This included an apology to the victims, presentation of a piece of art, completion of activities with local community groups, and genuine remorse (para. 30).