Every sentence imposed in an Ontario criminal court is shaped by a set of general principles set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. These provisions do not tell a judge exactly what sentence to impose in a given case, but they establish the purposes a sentence is meant to serve and the framework a judge must work within when deciding on one. This page explains those general principles in plain language. It is general legal information only, not legal advice, and it does not predict or suggest what sentence might apply to any specific case.
This page is meant as an overview of the framework, not a description of any particular sentence. For the specific types of sentences a court can impose, see our pages on probation, fines, restitution, custodial sentences, conditional sentences, and how a sentencing hearing actually unfolds.
The Purposes of Sentencing
Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society, by imposing sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
- Denunciation of unlawful conduct and of the harm done to victims and the community.
- Deterrence of the offender, and other people, from committing offences.
- Separation of offenders from society, where necessary.
- Rehabilitation of offenders.
- Reparations for harm done to victims or to the community.
- Promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and the community.
A single sentence is not expected to serve every one of these objectives equally. Courts generally weigh them against each other based on the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender, which is one reason sentencing is often described as an individualized exercise rather than a fixed calculation.
Proportionality: The Fundamental Principle
Section 718.1 sets out what the Criminal Code itself calls the fundamental principle of sentencing: a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Every other sentencing principle operates within, and is subordinate to, this core requirement.
Proportionality works in both directions. It generally limits how severe a sentence can be, so that an offender is not punished more harshly than their offence and level of responsibility justify, but it can also mean that a sentence should not be unduly lenient given the seriousness of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility for it. Applying this principle to a specific case requires a detailed understanding of the facts, the offence, and relevant case law, which is why this page describes the principle in general terms only.
Because sentencing is individualized, no general information page can predict a specific sentence. A lawyer reviewing the full facts of a case, the applicable charge, and relevant case law is in the best position to advise on a likely range of outcomes.
Other Sentencing Principles
Beyond proportionality, section 718.2 directs courts to apply several additional principles when determining a sentence, including that a sentence should be increased or reduced for relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances, that similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should generally receive similar sentences (the parity principle, discussed further below), and that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if a less restrictive sanction is appropriate in the circumstances, sometimes described as the principle of restraint.
Section 718.2(e) also directs courts to pay particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders when considering all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances. This is a distinct and legally significant area of sentencing law, and our page on sentencing and Indigenous offenders explains it in more detail, including the Supreme Court of Canada decisions that shape how it is applied.
Aggravating Factors
Section 718.2(a) lists specific circumstances that Parliament has identified as aggravating, meaning they can support a more severe sentence. These include, among others:
- Evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or a similar factor.
- Evidence that the offender abused their spouse, common-law partner, or a member of the victim's or the offender's family.
- Evidence that the offender abused a person under eighteen years of age.
- Evidence that the offender abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim.
- Evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization.
- Evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence.
This is a non-exhaustive list. Courts can, and regularly do, also treat other case-specific facts, such as the degree of planning involved or the extent of harm caused, as aggravating, depending on the offence and the evidence before the court.
Mitigating Factors
Mitigating factors are circumstances that can support a less severe sentence. The Criminal Code does not list mitigating factors as specifically as it lists aggravating ones, but factors courts commonly consider can include a lack of a prior criminal record, genuine remorse, an early guilty plea, steps taken toward rehabilitation such as counselling or treatment, and a low likelihood of reoffending. As with aggravating factors, which specific factors apply, and how much weight they receive, depends entirely on the evidence in a specific case.
Parity and Totality
The parity principle, reflected in section 718.2(b), provides that similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should generally receive similar sentences. Courts often look to sentences imposed in comparable cases to help maintain consistency, while still allowing enough flexibility to account for the specific facts of the case before them.
The totality principle applies when an offender is being sentenced for more than one offence at the same time and consecutive sentences are being considered. It requires that the combined, overall sentence not be unduly long or harsh, and remain proportionate to the offender's overall level of culpability, even where each individual sentence might otherwise be appropriate on its own. This principle is connected to section 718.2(c), which addresses consecutive sentences directly.
How Courts Apply These Principles
At a sentencing hearing, the Crown and the defence generally make submissions that address these principles directly, identifying the purposes they say are most relevant, the aggravating and mitigating factors they rely on, and any comparable cases that inform an appropriate range. The judge then weighs these submissions against the framework in sections 718 to 718.2 in deciding on a sentence. Our page on sentencing hearings explains this process in more detail, including the role of pre-sentence reports and victim impact statements.
Because these principles interact with one another, and because their application depends heavily on the specific facts and the applicable case law, this page intentionally does not suggest how they would apply to any particular offence or offender. A lawyer reviewing the full circumstances of a case is in the best position to explain how these principles are likely to be argued.
Types of Sentences and Related Topics
The principles on this page apply across the full range of sentencing outcomes available under Canadian law. For a closer look at specific sentence types and related topics, see:
- Discharges, where a finding of guilt does not result in a formally registered conviction.
- Suspended sentences, where passing sentence is suspended and the offender is placed on probation instead.
- Probation, involving conditions followed in the community.
- Fines, a monetary penalty, which can include a victim surcharge.
- Restitution, compensating a victim for certain losses.
- Custodial sentences and conditional sentences, addressing time served in custody or, where available, in the community under strict conditions.
- Ancillary orders, additional orders that can accompany a sentence, such as weapons prohibitions or DNA orders.
- Victim impact statements, which a court considers as part of the sentencing process.
- Sentencing and Indigenous offenders, covering section 718.2(e) and its application.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the most important sentencing principle?
Proportionality, set out in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, is described as the fundamental principle: a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility.
Do all the purposes of sentencing apply equally in every case?
No. Courts weigh purposes such as denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation differently depending on the offence and the offender's circumstances, rather than applying all of them equally in every case.
What counts as an aggravating factor?
Section 718.2(a) lists several specific aggravating factors, such as bias or hate motivation and abuse of a position of trust, but courts can also consider other case-specific facts as aggravating depending on the evidence.
What is the difference between parity and totality?
Parity concerns consistency between similar cases involving different offenders. Totality concerns the combined length of consecutive sentences for the same offender, ensuring the overall sentence remains proportionate.
Can this page tell me what sentence applies to a specific offence?
No. This page explains the general legal framework only. What sentence might apply to a specific offence depends on the facts, the charge, and applicable case law, and is a matter for a lawyer to assess.
Where can I read about a specific type of sentence?
See our pages on probation, fines, restitution, custody, and conditional sentences for details on each.