Case information

Criminal law — Sentencing — Aboriginal offenders — Application of the principles outlined in R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 — Did the majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal ( QCCA ) err in law in addressing the fact that the sentencing judge confounded sentencing principles and objectives and their application? — Did the majority of the QCCA err in failing to address the application of the Gladue principles, as reiterated in R. v. Ipeelee, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433 no matter the seriousness of the infraction and in an inclusive rather than additional approach? — Did the majority of the QCCA err in failing to assess the obligation of the sentencing judge to include evidence of the of the Gladue principles that are personal to the delinquent? — Did the majority of the QCCA err, both in law and facts, in accepting and interpreting the position of the sentencing judge on the constitutive elements of the infraction (section 423.1(1)(b)(3) of the Criminal Code) in the circumstances by assimilating it to a prior conviction in similar matter, hence a conviction under section 264.1 and 139 of the Criminal Code? — Did the majority of the QCCA err in failing to conclude that the sentence was demonstrably unfit? — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 718.2(e).

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.

Mr. Juusi Alasuak Aullaluk, the applicant, is an Inuit man from Akulivik, a village located in Nunavik in Northern Québec. In August 2021, Mr. Aullaluk was found guilty of intimidating a justice system participant in violation of s. 423.1(1)(b)(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. On September 16th, 2021, the Court of Quebec sentenced the applicant to eight months of imprisonment followed by 2 years of probation and an obligation to perform 200 hours of community service within 18 months of his release. No Gladue report or pre-sentencing report was adduced at the sentencing hearing. Neither the respondent nor the applicant requested that a Gladue report be drafted. The sentencing judge did not request a Gladue report prior to rendering his sentencing decision. The applicant appealed his sentence. At the hearing, the Court of Appeal authorized the filing of fresh evidence in the form of a pre-sentence report and a Gladue report prepared for the purpose of another case. A majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the sentencing judge.