Case information

Criminal law — Sentencing — Indigenous offenders — Considerations — Applicants convicted of criminal contempt for defying an injunction — Does R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, and subsequent jurisprudence associated with the Aboriginal perspective, require Canada’s courts to give weight to a sincerely held Aboriginal perspective when sentencing an Indigenous contemnor, as a matter of reconciling Canadian and Indigenous belief systems? — Whether the applicants’ motives and mistaken belief in the lawfulness of their actions is a mitigating factor? — Whether Indigenous laws and beliefs can be a mitigating factor in sentencing as they relate to the offender’s moral blameworthiness? — Whether the offence of criminal contempt is “serious” as defined in Wells, thus justifying equivalent terms of imprisonment for Indigenous and non-Indigenous contemptors? — If it is not considered “serious”, then under what circumstances will the Gladue methodology warrant a qualitative mitigation on sentence for Indigenous contemptors?

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.

The applicants identify as Indigenous. They were convicted of criminal contempt for defying an injunction that prohibited persons from impeding employees and contractors from accessing Trans Mountain Pipeline’s worksites. The applicants were sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment. Mr. Gallagher was sentenced to 90 days’ imprisonment for his second conviction. The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeals.