Starting Points and Sentencing Ranges: Different Paths to the Same Destination

The latest case summary for Canlii Connects takes a look at the Supreme Court of Canada’s commentary on the sentencing process. A number of important principles emerge from this case including the court highlighting the importance of individualization in crafting a proportionate sentence.

R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46 

Issue: Are starting points an appropriate form of appellate guidance?

Facts: Mr. Felix and Mr. Parranto pleaded guilty to offences arising out of unrelated drug trafficking operations, including wholesale fentanyl trafficking. The sentencing judge imposed a global 7‑year sentence on Mr. Felix and a global sentence of 11 years on Mr. Parranto. The Crown appealed the sentences to the Court of Appeal of Alberta, where a five‑member panel heard the appeals jointly for the express purpose of setting a starting point for wholesale fentanyl trafficking. The Court of Appeal set a 9‑year starting point for wholesale fentanyl trafficking. Mr. Felix’s sentence was increased to 10 years and Mr. Parranto’s to 14 years. 

The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada seeking to have the starting point approach to sentencing abolished arguing that the starting‑point approach has undesirable results, including higher rates of incarceration for Indigenous and other offenders.

Ruling: A majority of the Court found that the initial sentences imposed were demonstrably unfit and dismissed the appeals. In relation to the issue of starting point sentences the joint reasons of Brown and Martin JJ. were adopted by a majority of the Court.

Across Canada there are two general approaches to appellate guidance on sentencing. The most common is that of sentencing ranges which generally represent a summary of the case law that reflects the minimum and maximum sentences imposed by trial judges in the past.

The method employed in Alberta is that of starting points. As explained by the Court, “[t]he starting‑point methodology has three stages: (1) defining the category of an offence to which the starting point applies; (2) setting a starting point; and (3) individualization of the sentence by the sentencing court”.

The court found that there was no need to abolish sentencing ranges. What is critical is that they be applied properly. Essential to that is that they be treated “as non-binding guidance” by both sentencing and appellate courts as opposed to rigid strait-jackets. A sentencing judge must always consider all relevant individual circumstances in reaching a fit sentence tailored to the offender.

This flexibility in sentencing modalities is reflective of the primary goal of sentencing: to impose a fit sentence. In our view, irrespective of the preferred sentencing methodology, the purpose of the modality is to assist the sentencing judge in achieving the objectives and principles of sentencing, primarily proportionality. Ranges and starting points are simply different paths to the same destination: a proportionate sentence.

Brown and Martin J. identified the key principles:

1.    Starting points and ranges are not and cannot be binding in theory or in practice;

2.    Ranges and starting points are “guidelines, not hard and fast rules”, and a “departure from or failure to refer to a range of sentence or starting point” cannot be treated as an error in principle; 

3.    Sentencing judges have discretion to “individualize sentencing both in method and outcome”, and “[d]ifferent methods may even be required to account properly for relevant systemic and background factors”; and

4.    Appellate courts cannot “intervene simply because the sentence is different from the sentence that would have been reached had the range of sentence or starting point been applied”. The focus should be on whether the sentence was fit and whether the judge properly applied the principles of sentencing, not whether the judge chose the right starting point or category.

In the result the Court declined to abolish starting points while confirming that they need to apply in such a way as to ensure that the sentencing process recognizes that each offence is committed in unique circumstances by an offender with unique characteristics.

by Scott Wright