 |
| John L. Hill |
The police also observed knives in plain view on the passenger seat and a 12-gauge shotgun. Lanktree was also subject to a weapons prohibition. Moreover, police discovered 139 grams of crystal meth and 573 methamphetamine pills. He was released on an undertaking.
Then, on May 25, 2022, police observed Lanktree driving his partner’s car and suspected a warrant was out for his arrest. He was stopped and arrested. He refused co-operation with police, and a search incidental to the arrest led to the finding of two bags of crystal meth and 353 methamphetamine tablets. This time, he was held in custody.
Lanktree pleaded guilty to the charges arising from these incidents and was sentenced to five years imprisonment less nine months for presentence custody (a Summers credit of 1.5 days deduction from the global sentence for every day held in custody before trial (R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26)).
Lanktree appealed on three grounds: (a) that he should have received a conditional sentence; (b) that the trial judge treated the damaging effect of drug use in the community as an aggravating factor; and (c) that on top of the Summers credit, he should have a deduction of 3:1 during the 68 days at the North Bay
Arslan Haider ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
The first ground failed. The sentencing judge noted that Lanktree had received six community-based sentences, and he continued to offend. A conditional sentence is predicated on a level of trust in the individual's ability to serve their sentence in the community. Here, such trust was unwarranted.
The second ground also failed. The trial judge had cited R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, which deals with the seriousness of drug trafficking and the need to hold those that engage in drug dealing accountable; the trial judge called Lanktree “part of the problem” for the harm wrought on the Sturgeon Falls community. Although R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, held that even though a crime occurs frequently in a particular region, that is not an aggravating factor. The Court of Appeal decided that the trial judge did not use the prevalence of drug usage in Sturgeon Falls as an aggravating factor; his remarks were to underline the importance of denunciation as a sentencing principle.
The Court of Appeal gave deference to the trial judge’s refusal to grant enhanced credit for lockdowns in the correctional facilities where Langtree had been held (R. v. Lanktree, 2024 ONCA 506). The trial judge could not be faulted in imposing the 60-month sentence and deducting the Summers credit. Although Langtree had urged further enhanced credit for time under lockdown as authorized by the Duncan decision, the granting of additional reduction in sentence is discretionary, and the sentencing judge is entitled to deference on appeal (R. v. U.A., 2019 ONCA 946; R. v. McLean, 2023 ONCA 835).
The Duncan enhanced credit was refused because he had initially been released on an undertaking. It was directly attributable to his conduct leading to the second set of charges that he wound up spending so much time in custody.
The trial judge was aware of the issue of whether Lanktree deserved a Duncan credit but, in the circumstances, did not see the harshness of the conditions as a mitigating factor. The appeal court held that the decision deserved deference.
The judgment notes that Lanktree pleaded guilty. One must wonder why a sentence with both a Summers and Duncan credit had not been discussed and submitted as a joint submission before a plea was taken. It would have saved a trip to the Court of Appeal.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.