The Supreme Court of Canada recently refused leave to appeal a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that raises the issue of whether old age should be considered as a factor during sentencing.
The appellant had been convicted of fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and laundering the proceeds of crime at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization. A prior appeal regarding the conviction itself had been dismissed by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
The Lower Court recognized the role of the appellant as a directing mind of a criminal organization and the losses suffered by the government as a result of his fraudulent acts. The Court had stated that age, even if it could be taken into account, was “only one factor among many”, which “cannot have a determinative impact because of the great number of aggravating factors”.
The appellant subsequently sought leave to appeal his four-year prison sentence. The appellant asserted that, at 81 years of age and in a poor state of health, his sentence ought to be replaced with a conditional sentence to be served in the community or otherwise limited in duration to allow him the prospect of life after prison.
The Quebec Court of Appeal summarized the law as it relates to the consideration of age during sentencing as follows (at paras 38, 39, 42, 43):
The advanced age of an accused must be taken into account when determining a sentence, as Chief Justice Lamer indicated in R. v. M. (C.A.)…
The age factor must, however, be considered in light of the health of the offender as it relates to his life expectancy. Consequently, the mere fact that an accused is elderly is not, in and of itself, a mitigating factor in determining a prison sentence, unless the evidence reveals that he has little chance of serving the sentence before passing away. This is increasingly true with the general aging of the Canadian population and the raised probability of longer life expectancies.
As a result, if at the time a sentence is imposed, the offender’s state of health does not suggest that he is unlikely to complete the sentence before his demise, the judge then has the necessary discretion to impose an appropriate sentence in light of all the usual factors and criteria…
It is possible that an offender’s state of health deteriorates following sentencing. This possibility increases with the age of the offender. The sentencing judge may not, however, speculate on this subject and must determine the sentence in accordance with the evidence before him when it is rendered…
The Court nevertheless considered the prison sentence to be appropriate, notwithstanding the expectation of the appellant that he may not survive it. The Supreme Court agreed with the reasons of the Quebec Court of Appeal.
With Canada’s aging population, cases like this, in which an individual convicted of a crime is elderly and/or in a poor state of health, can be expected to increase in frequency. The Supreme Court has confirmed that (for the time being at least), while age is a factor to be considered during sentencing, it is merely one to be assessed among others, rather than being determinative of the issue.
Thank you for reading.
Being a trustee is serious business. A trustee, by law, owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries for whom he or she holds property and must keep this in mind and act in the best interest of those beneficiaries at all times.
The Court does not take the breach of fiduciary duties lightly and will Order trustees to fulfil their obligations. If a trustee doesn’t heed such Orders, they may find themselves in contempt of court, as was the case in a recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Re Penna Estate.
In Re Penna Estate, the defendant was found in breach of the following four Court Orders during the course of litigation that had been ongoing for five years:
1. A Mareva Injunction.
2. A Passing of Accounts Order.
3. An Order to provide the Court with an up-dated Affidavit respecting the values of assets listed in the Mareva Injunction.
4. An Order of to attend at an Examination in-aid-of execution and to bring all documentation. The Defendant was also ordered to provide an Affidavit respecting the status of his assets, which were frozen under the Mareva Injunction, since it was discovered that he had liquidated all such assets.
Justice Greer found that the Defendant had made no attempt to comply with the Orders and had committed fraud in the administration of the estate. The Court discussed the possible sanctions for contempt, which include:
1. Imprisonment for such a period and on such terms as are just.
2. Imprisonment if the person fails to comply with the term of the Order.
3. A fine to be paid to the Provincial Treasurer.
4. A Order to do or refrain from doing an act.
5. An Order to pay such costs as are just.
6. An Order to comply with any other order that the Judge considers necessary.
In Re Penna Estate, the Court considered the applicable sentencing principles and found that the appropriate sanction in the circumstances was a term of imprisonment. The Defendant was sentenced to 14 months. Furthermore, because this was a civil contempt, there was no method of parole as there is in criminal matters.
A sobering lesson for all who are the subject of civil Court Orders, indeed.
Sharon Davis – Click here for more information on Sharon Davis.