Les circonstances justifiant l'octroi d'un crédit pour détention pré-sentencielle

R. v. Stonefish, 2012 MBCA 116 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

Circumstances adopted by courts that justify enhanced credit have included:

1) Conditions in remand facilities such as:

• lack of programming or counselling available on remand – e.g., R. v. Haly, 2012 ONSC 2302 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 2302 (QL) (where a ratio of 1.2:1 was used); R. v. Mullins (P.E.), 2011 SKQB 478 (CanLII), 2011 SKQB 478, 388 Sask.R. 221; and R. c. Auger, 2012 QCCQ 568 (CanLII), 2012 QCCQ 568 (QL);

• the number of lockdowns the offender experienced during PSC – e.g., Mullins; R. v. Oates, 2012 ONCJ 461 (CanLII), 2012 ONCJ 461 (QL), but to the contrary, see R. v. Sayed, 2012 ONSC 843 (CanLII), 2012 ONSC 843 (QL);

• time spent by the offender in solitary confinement – e.g., R. v. Seymour, 2011 BCSC 1682 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 1682 (QL) (time spent there was for his own protection); R. c. Guo, 2011 QCCQ 10469 (CanLII), 2011 QCCQ 10469 (QL); and

• harsh circumstances in the remand facility – e.g., R. v. J.B., 2011 BCPC 158 (CanLII), 2011 BCPC 158 (QL) (double-bunking, exposed to violence); R. v. Clayton, 2012 ABQB 333 (CanLII), 2012 ABQB 333 (QL) (overcrowding, had to sleep on the floor); and Auger (no visitors while in PSC).

2) Post-trial delay not attributable to the accused, including delays caused by:

• the court – e.g., R. v. Dingwell (D.A.), 2012 PESC 13 (CanLII), 2012 PESC 13, 321 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 263; R. v. B.R.S., 2011 ONCJ 484 (CanLII), 2011 ONCJ 484 (QL); and R. v. Sabatine, 2012 ONCJ 310 (CanLII), 2012 ONCJ 310 (QL) (request for further submissions and time spent drafting reasons);

• the need to obtain a pre-sentence report or a Gladue (R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688) report or a psychiatric assessment – e.g,. R. v. House (Z.C.) (2012), 319 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 197 (NL Prov. Ct.); R. v. Sharkey, 2011 BCSC 1541 (CanLII), 2011 BCSC 1541 (QL); and R. v. Mozumdar, 2012 ONCJ 151 (CanLII), 2012 ONCJ 151 (QL);

• multiple court appearances for the purposes of sentencing – e.g., R. v. Przybyla, 2012 ABPC 183 (CanLII), 2012 ABPC 183 (QL); and

• the Crown – e.g., R. c. Lefrançois, 2012 QCCQ 5655 (CanLII), 2012 QCCQ 5655 (QL).

45 There are also a number of cases which have identified circumstances where denying enhanced credit was justified. Such circumstances included delay caused by the offender and where an offender had a history of breaching court orders. In addition, where offenders have deliberately protracted their remand detention or otherwise endeavoured to manipulate the system, judges may well discount the credit ratio. See R. v. Leggo (R.) (2012), 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 252 (NL Prov. Ct.); R. v. Morris, 2011 ONSC 5206 (CanLII), 2011 ONSC 5206 (QL); J.B.; Johnson; and Sabatine.

46 None of the above factors are especially exceptional and I would conclude that the circumstances that justify enhanced credit in s. 719(3.1) of the Code need not be exceptional. This is also the conclusion reached in the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal case of Carvery, which I will discuss in greater detail later in these reasons.