In R. v. Johnston (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered 'sentencing ranges':
[8] In following this route, the sentencing judge made an error in principle. As a result, this court is entitled to intervene and, consequently, we must undertake our own sentencing analysis: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at para. 27. As part of that analysis, we recognize that the sentencing judge gave detailed reasons for concluding that a three-year sentence was fit. We would not interfere with her conclusion, even though that sentence falls outside the established range of sentence for trafficking in drugs at the kilogram level. On that point, we note that sentencing ranges are primarily guidelines. They are not hard and fast rules. A judge can order a sentence outside an applicable range if it accords with the principles and objectives of sentencing: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 58. The reasons given by the sentencing judge for a three-year sentence are consistent with the principles and objectives of sentencing.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
