In R. v. Ruthowsky (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers the basic sentencing principles of 'parity':
[172] The threshold for an appellate court to intervene on the basis that a sentence is unfit, absent a discrete error in principle, is high. Language such as “clearly unreasonable”, “demonstrably unfit”, and “clearly and manifestly excessive” have been used to describe the high threshold: Lacasse, at para. 52.
[173] Sentencing ranges are a tool to give effect to the principle of parity in sentencing. However, while parity is an important objective in sentencing, it is not the only objective. Sentencing is an individualized exercise. Sentencing ranges function as guidelines. There will be circumstances that call for a sentence above or below the range of sentences imposed in previous cases. Imposing a sentence outside the range of previous cases is not in itself an error in principle and does not, standing alone, result in an unfit sentence. Deviation from a range of sentence does not constitute error in principle or result in an unfit sentence “unless the sentence that is imposed departs significantly and for no reason” from the range (emphasis added): Lacasse, at paras. 56-61, 67.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
