Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!” In this episode, Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee discusses the principle of totality in sentencing through the case of Mr. Simeunovich, who faced charges for driving while disqualified while already serving a sentence for criminal negligence.
This case highlights critical issues about sentencing ranges and judicial discretion. Key Points Discussed: Totality Principle: Examination of Mr. Simeunovich’s case and the court’s decision to impose a consecutive sentence beyond the usual guidelines. Judicial Discretion: Analysis of the court’s justification for deviating from sentencing ranges based on public policy. Sentencing Certainty: The impact of unclear guidelines on accused persons’ decisions to plead guilty or go to trial.
Why This Case Matters: This case underscores the need for the Supreme Court of Canada to provide clearer guidelines on when judges can depart from established sentencing ranges, ensuring fairness and certainty in the criminal justice system.
Topics Covered: Totality principle in sentencing Judicial discretion and sentencing ranges Impact of sentencing deviations on accused persons Need for clear guidelines from the Supreme Court of Canada
