Law360 Canada ( January 28, 2025, 10:17 AM EST) -- Appeal by Barter from sentence of six-year period of imprisonment imposed for armed robbery and several other criminal offences. Barter submitted that the sentencing judge (judge) erred because he concluded that a sentence of six years imprisonment (excluding remand time) was the fit sentence despite that the sentence exceeded the four and a half to five years imprisonment proposed by the Crown. Although Barter also agreed to the sentence proposed by the Crown, this was not a joint submission. The judge neither notified the parties of his intention to impose a higher sentence, nor did he permit further submissions. Barter submitted this failure by the judge amounted to an error in principle. The Crown conceded that the sentencing judge erred in principle by imposing a sentence harsher than that recommended by Crown counsel without first notifying the parties and providing them an opportunity to make further submissions. However, the Crown submitted that the error did not impact the sentence and that the sentence was fit. The question for the appellate court was whether the error in failing to notify or permit the parties further submissions would justify appellate intervention....