Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In 2009, the Parliament of Canada passed the Truth in Sentencing Act which mostly eliminated a judge's discretion to give credit for pre-trial custody beyond one day for every day served. [14] The bill received Royal Assent on 23 October 2009 and came into force on 22 February 2010.
Current sentencing practices ensure that, except in the case of murder, a life sentence is rarely imposed. One common exception is cases which involve terrorism-related conspiracies. [17] [18] [19] As of 2013, 4,800 offenders were serving life sentences in Canada, though only 2,880 (around 60%) were incarcerated, the remainder being on parole.
All non-summary offences are indictable: the available penalties are greater for indictable offences than for summary offences. These in turn may be divided into three categories: 1. Very serious indictable-only offences including treason and murder (section 235) [2] that are listed in section 469 of the Criminal Code. [2]
It abolished all common law offences (other than for contempt of court), as well as any offences created by the British Parliament or in effect under an Act or ordinance in any place before becoming part of Canada. [14] Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69, S.C. 1968–69, c. 38 Various, from July 1, 1969, to January 1, 1970
A conditional sentence is a custodial sentence. However, the accused is ineligible for remission. Typically accused persons sentenced to custody are given a one-day reduction for every two days served, provided the accused is of good behaviour and follows the institutional rules (see sec. 6 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act).
Chin was sentenced by the judge to an eighteen-month conditional sentence, during which he was barred from using the Internet. This is the first-known manga-related child pornography case in Canada. It is also the first-known case that exclusively prosecutes this offense, not used in conjunction with other laws to increase sentencing. [28] [29]
Whether proceedings under s. 163.2 of the Income Tax Act imposing monetary penalties on every person who makes a false statement that could be used by another person for purposes under that Act are criminal in nature or lead to the imposition of true penal consequences; Whether an individual assessed for same penalties is a person "charged with ...
In R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the test set out in Askov, noting that the accused bears a certain onus to demonstrate actual prejudice as a result of delay. In cases of very extensive delay, however, the court found that prejudice could be inferred.