In Canada, courts have historically borne the primary responsibility for ensuring that sentences in criminal cases fit the seriousness of the impugned conduct. In this respect, Canada is not unique. As in many other common law jurisdictions, the Parliament of Canada has preferred to define criminal offences in broad language, permitting an offence to capture a wide array of conduct with varying degrees of moral culpability. I t usually sets only high, rarely-imposed maximum penalties. Although these maximum penalties are mandatory, the yoke of this Parliamentary circumscription of judicial discretion in sentencing has rested lightly on judges' shoulders. Published in Supreme Court law Review, (2016) 73 SCLR (2d).
Article
Parliamentary Restrictions on Judicial Discretion in Sentencing
2016
Parliamentary Restrictions on Judicial Discretion in Sentencing
Republication Requests
To obtain permission to republish this publication or any other publication, contact Erica Wirthlin at wirthline@bennettjones.com.
For Informational Purposes Only
This publication provides an overview of trends and legal updates for informational purposes only. For personalized legal advice, please contact the authors.
From the Same Authors
See AllBlog
The Strong Borders Act Seeks to Strengthen the Canadian Anti-Money Laundering Regime
August 5, 2025Lincoln Caylor, Nathan J. Shaheen & Dylan A. Gallant
Blog
Court of Appeal Certifies Negligence Claim Against Gun Manufacturer for Mass Shooting
July 22, 2025Gannon Beaulne, Thomas Feore & Maisah Syed
Latest Insights
See All Insights See AllBlog
OPC Issues New PIPEDA Guidance on Assessing Third-Party Service Providers
September 14, 2026 & 2 more
Blog
Government of Canada Reduces the Scope of the Project List under the Impact Assessment Act
September 11, 2026Ashley M. White, Martin Ignasiak KC & Nathan Murray
Blog
BC Signs DRIPA Agreement Requiring Simpcw Consent for Yellowhead Copper Project
September 10, 2026 & 1 more





















