Case information

Criminal law — Sentencing — Young persons — Custody — Limitations on use of custodial sentences — Whether R. v. Friesen requires more punitive youth sentences — Whether functional approach to facially deficient reasons applied correctly — When non-regional cases may be used to determine parity in youth sentences

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)

One night in March 2019, the respondent, M.M., had sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent while she was sleeping. M.M. was found guilty after trial. At the time of sentencing, while still denying responsibility for the offence, M.M. had suffered significant collateral consequences from the charges, and was making strides in his rehabilitation. Referencing a case from the Manitoba Court of Appeal and this Court’s decision in R. v. Friesen, the sentencing judge imposed a custodial sentence. The Court of Appeal allowed a sentencing appeal, holding that:

1. Friesen does not mandate an emphasis on punitive objectives in youth sentencing in cases of child sexual abuse;
2. The sentencing judge’s reasons did not provide the consideration or reasons required by ss. 38(2)(d), 39(2), 39(3)(a) and 39(9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act when a custodial sentence is imposed; and
3. The Manitoba Court of Appeal decision relied upon by the sentencing judge was distinguishable.