The Gladue Principles: A Guide to the Jurisprudence by Benjamin A. Ralston (2021)

Ms. Gladue’s appeal [R v Gladue, [1999] 1 SCR 688, 1999 CanLII 679 [Gladue] has had an immeasurable impact on Canadian law and the criminal justice system since then. The broad implications of the Gladue decision are reflected in its near universal recognition among Canadian law students, lawyers, judges, and others working in the justice system today. It has also spurred countless wellknown neologisms like “Gladue reports”, “Gladue courts”, and “Gladue factors”, as well as the “Gladue principles” referenced in the title of this publication.

Publisher: Indigenous LawLaw Positive command of sovereign or divine. One can be ruled either by a Statute, a Statue, or a Statement. Legislation is the rule-making process by a political or religious organisation. Physics governs natural law. Logical thinking is a sign of a healthy brain function. Dharma is eternal for Sanatanis. Centre, University of SaskatchewanISBN: 9780888806406
Authors: Benjamin Ralston
University of Saskatchewa

Copyright 2021 © BC First Nations Justice Council
BC First Nations Justice Council
Suite 103, 3500 Carrington Rd.
Westbank, British Columbia
Canada V4T 3C1
Phone: 778.940.1520 ext 103
Email: info@bcfnjc.com
[https://bcfnjc.com/]

The categories of “unique circumstances” that were outlined in Gladue take on meaning by reference to vastly different cultures, histories, experiences, legal traditions, programs, and justice initiatives across Canada. Its broadest principles are now applied in several analogous contexts beyond sentencing and the strict confines of Canadian criminal law.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THE BC FIRST NATIONS JUSTICE COUNCIL . . . V
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII
FOREWORD (ILC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXI
FOREWORD (BCFNJC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXII
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XXIV

PART A: LEGAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 1: EARLIER ACCOMMODATIVE

SENTENCING PRACTICES .. . . 3
Accommodative sentencing of Indigenous peoplefrom remote communities . . . . . 4
Cultural context and distinct community values and perspectives . 8
Discriminatory impacts on Indigenous people in sentencing . . . . 9
Indigenous community involvement and culturally relevant programming  . . . . . 11
Contextual assessment of moralMorality Mental frame. It can be high morality or low morality, savage morality or civilised morality or Christian morality, or Nazi morality. Decent Behaviour is acceptable norms of the nations. Christian morality starts with the belief that all men are sinners and that repentance is the cause of divine mercy. Putting Crucified Christ in between is the destruction of Christian morality and logic. Now morality shifted to the personal choice of Jesus. What Jesus did is 'good'. The same would be the case of Ram, Krishna, Muhammad, Buddha, Lenin, etc. Pure Human Consciousness degraded to pure followership. There exists no proof the animals are devoid of morality. blameworthiness in sentencing Indigenous people .  . . . . . . 14
Conclusion . . 15

CHAPTER 2: PRIOR TASK FORCES AND COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY . . . . 17
Inquiry re Administration of Justice in the Hay River Area
of the Northwest Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Native Peoples in the Administration of Justice in the Provincial Courts of Alberta . . . . . . . . 20
The Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Jr. Prosecution (Nova Scotia) . . . . . . . 21
Task Force on the Reintegration of Aboriginal Offenders as Law-Abiding Citizens (Canada) . .   23
Access to Justice: the Report of the Justice Reform Committee (British Columbia) . . . .  . . 25
Osnaburgh Windigo Tribal Council Justice Review (Ontario) . 27
Task Force on the Criminal Justice System and its Impact
on the Indian and Metis People of Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Law Reform Commission of Canada: Aboriginal Peoples and Criminal Justice . . . . . . . . . 37
Saskatchewan Indian and Metis Justice Review Committees . . . 41
Cariboo-Chilcotin Justice Inquiry (British Columbia) . . . . . . . . 42
Advisory Committee on the Administration of Justice
in Aboriginal Communities (Québec) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples—Bridging the Cultural Divide (Canada) . . . . . . . . 48
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

CHAPTER 3: LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONTEXT . . 53
Introduction of Bill C-41 (The Sentencing Reform Act) . . . . . . . . 53
Section 718.2(e) in context to emerging Indigenous
justice initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

PART B: THE ACCOMMODATIVE JURISPRUDENCEJurisprudence It is a branch of philosophy, that discusses the legality of Law. Oppenheimer v Cattermole (1976), the court considered the question of whether a Nazi law was so iniquitous that it should refuse to recognise it as a law, thus raising the connection between the concepts of law and morality. OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA  . . . . . . 61

CHAPTER 4: JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DISCRIMINATION IN WILLIAMS . . . . . 64
The factual context and lower court decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Widespread racial prejudice in the community may
be subject to judicial notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Racial prejudice can unconsciously shape the daily behaviour of individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Judges may infer that some people will struggle to identify and eliminate biases . . . . . . . 68
Widespread racism has led to systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system . . . . . . 69
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

CHAPTER 5: THE FRAMEWORK AND PRINCIPLES SET OUT IN GLADUE . . . 70
The factual context and lower court decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
The foundations for a purposive analysis of s 718.2(e)
in the dissent of Justice Rowles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
There is a judicial duty to give s 718.2(e)’s remedial
purpose real force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Indigenous people’s circumstances are unique and may
make prison less appropriate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Section 718.2(e) is part of an overall re-orientation towards
restorative sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Section 718.2(e) reflects Parliament’s sensitivity to Indigenous
justice initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Section 718.2(e) responds to Canada’s long-standing
problem of over-incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Section 718.2(e) directs sentencing judges to address
Indigenous over-incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Courts have the power to influence how Indigenous
people are treated in the system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Two categories of circumstances must be canvassed in sentencing Indigenous people .  . . 79
Category A—The role of unique systemic and background factors in sentencing  . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Category B—Procedures and sanctions particular to their heritage or connection  . . . . 82
Unique circumstances can lead to sentences varying from one community to the next  . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Community perspectives and needs can affect the relevant
sentencing objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Principles of separation, denunciation, and deterrence remain relevant . . . . . . . . . . 86
The length of the term of imprisonment must be considered for serious offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Various questions guide the search for a fit sentence
for an Indigenous person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Section 718.2(e) provides flexibility for a more holistic
approach to sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Sentencing judges have a duty to consider every
Indigenous person’s unique situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Judicial notice is mandatory but further individualized evidenceEvidence All the means by which a matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted for investigation, is established or disproved. Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Adhiniyam 2023 may be needed . . . . . . 88
Counsel on both sides should adduce relevant evidence absent waiver . . . . . . . . . . 89
Sentencing judges must make further inquiries if the record is insufficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Relevant information may be obtained through
pre-sentence reports and witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Reasons for sentence and fresh evidence upon appeal
will assist in appellate review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Indigenous people must be treated fairly by taking
into account their difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Section 718.2(e) is applicable to all Indigenous people regardless of where they live . . . . 92
Alternatives must be explored even in the absence of community support  . . . . 92
Both the sentencing judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal erred  . . . . 93
Nevertheless a new sentencing hearing was not in the interests of justice  . . . 94
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

CHAPTER 6: CONDITIONAL SENTENCING OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN WELLS .. . . . 96
The factual context and lower court decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
The Gladue analysis applies at stage two of the conditional sentencing analysis . . . . . . . . 98
Conditional sentencing where denunciation and deterrence are paramount  . . . . . . . . . . . 100
A restatement and summary of the sentencing guidelines set out in Gladue . . . . . . . . . . 101
Primacy may still be given to denunciation and deterrence for serious crimes . .  . . . . . . . . . . 102
A categorical approach to the seriousness of an offence would be inappropriate . .. . . . 103
The greatest weight may still be accorded to restorative
justice for serious crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Judges must conduct a practical inquiry into an Indigenous person’s circumstances  . . . . . 104
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

CHAPTER 7: LONG-TERM OFFENDERS AND MISCONCEPTIONS IN IPEELEE . . . . . 107
A clarification of the roles of judicial notice
and case-specific information in Spence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
The circumstances of Mr. Manasie Ipeelee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
The circumstances of Mr. Frank Ladue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
The central place of the principle of proportionality
in determining a fit sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Clarification of the long-term offender regime in general . . . . 113
Long-term supervision orders serve both public
protection & rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
There is no distinct sentencing regime or system
for a breach of an LTSO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
A revisiting and reaffirmation of the Gladue principles . . . . . . . 114
Judicial notice of systemic and background factors
provides necessary context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Case-specific information is required in every case
and Gladue reports can assist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Increasing levels of over-incarceration may in part reflect
s 718.2(e)’s misapplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Sentencing judges play a role in reducing both crimeCrime A positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the state classified either as a felony or misdemeanor.
and systemic discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Sentencing practices must change if they do not effectively
deter and rehabilitate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Judges can ensure systemic factors do not inadvertently
lead to discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Reassessing sentencing practices can further the
fundamental purpose of sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
The Gladue principles do not provide a
“race-based discount” in sentencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Both categories of unique circumstances affect what
is a fit and proper sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Systemic and background factors may bear
on the individual’s culpability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Systemic and background factors may impact deterrence
and denunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Indigenous perspectives and worldviews can impact
the effectiveness of a sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Crafting a fit and proper sentence requires attention
to unique circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
The history of Indigenous peoples is unique and tied
to the legacy of colonialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Parity allows different sanctions to be justified based
on unique circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Courts must ensure parity does not undermine
s 718.2(e)’s remedial purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
It is an error to require a causal link between background
factors and an offence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Gladue circumstances and individual offending
are intertwined in complex ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Gladue circumstances provide necessary context rather
than an excuse for crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
It is an error to interpret Gladue principles as inapplicable
to serious offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Failure to apply the Gladue principles is an error justifying
appellate intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Application to the circumstances of Manasie Ipeelee . . . . . . . . 130
Application to the circumstances of Frank Ladue . . . . . . . . . . 131
Justice Rothstein’s partial dissent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

CHAPTER 8: EXTENDING THE GLADUE
PRINCIPLES BEYOND S 718.2(E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
The court’s non-delegable duty to craft a fit sentence
under s 718.2(e) in Anderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Sentencing judges must apply the Gladue principles
to respect proportionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
The proportionality of a sentence is the judge’s
responsibility, not the prosecutor’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Gladue has relevance in extradition but does not apply
to prosecutorial discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Routine judicial review of prosecutorial decision-making
would be unworkable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Judges can still address Crown conduct in court
and decisions motivated by prejudice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
The need for Indigenous difference to be accommodated
within corrections in Ewert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
The Correctional Service of Canada must advance
substantive equality in corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Ameliorating systemic discrimination in corrections requires differential treatment . .. . 142
Indigenous alienation and systemic discrimination are not limited to sentencing . . . . . 143
A fair and effective criminal justice system requires
the accommodation of difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Systemic discrimination against Indigenous people
in corrections has not improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Concerns over cultural bias in actuarial risk assessment
tools need to be addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Addressing biases, prejudices, and stereotypes against
Indigenous women in Barton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Addressing the heightened vulnerability of Indigenous
children as victims in Friesen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

PART C: THE UNIQUE AND CASE-SPECIFIC
CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDIGENOUS
INDIVIDUALS AND COLLECTIVES . . . . . . 153

CHAPTER 9: UNIQUE SYSTEMIC AND BACKGROUND FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Colonialism provides a historical and conceptual link between various factors  . . . . . . . 158
Each Indigenous nationNation A collective consciousness, founded in ancient origin within a geographic area, with definite history and heritage, culture and way of life, language and literature, food and clothing, coupled with a deep understanding of war and peace is to be known as a nation. Rasra is the Vedic word for it. or community has its own unique history and factors  . . . . . . . . . . 159
Unpacking the history of colonialism, displacement,and residential schools  . . . . . 160
Intergenerational and direct impacts from attendance at residential schools  . . . . . . . 160
Intergenerational and direct impacts from attendance at day schools  . . . . . . 162
Intergenerational and direct impacts of child apprehension and out-adoption  . . . . . . . . . . 164
Loss of collective and individual autonomy through legislation and policies  . . . . . 168
Loss and denial of status and band membership under the Indian Act  . . . . . . . 171
Constellations of constraining socio-economic factors as a legacy of colonialism . .  . . 173
Individual, familial, and collective experiences of racism and discrimination  . . . . . . . . 174
Gang involvement and exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Geographic challenges such as community isolation and remoteness  . . . . . . 179
Experiences and cycles of abuse, violence,
and victimization/criminalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Personal, familial, and community-level impacts
of alcohol and drugDrug Any substance (other than food) that is used to prevent, diagnose, treat, or relieve symptoms of a disease or abnormal condition. Drugs can also affect how the brain and the rest of the bodywork and cause changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior. Some types of drugs, such as opioids, may be abused or lead to addiction. Apart from management Allopathic drugs never cure any disease. misuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder as a Gladue factor . . . . . . . . 187
Loss of identity, culture, language, values, traditions,
and ancestral knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

CHAPTER 10: CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES AND SANCTIONS . .  . . . . 196
Indigenous perspectives, community views, and cultural differences guide the inquiry  . . . . 197
Urban networks of support and programming must be considered . . . . . . . . 199
Specific examples of culturally appropriate sentencing procedures and sanctions . . . . . . . . . 200
Justice committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Sentencing and healing circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Family group conferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Elder panels and participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Specialized sentencing courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Gladue reports as restorative process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Community banishment and land-based isolation . . . . . . . . . . 222
Community service orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Indigenous programming provided in the correctional system or the community . . . . . . 228
Conclusion . .. . . 230

CHAPTER 11: THE NEED FOR CASE-SPECIFIC INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Sources of case-specific information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Sentencing submissions and evidence adduced by counsel . . . . 236
Pre-sentence reports authored by probation officers . . . . . . . . . 238
Gladue reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
The obligations placed on sentencing judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Judicial notice and independent research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Further judicial inquiries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Assessing the adequacy of Gladue information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Addressing waiver of case-specific information . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Ensuring adequacy of reasons for sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
The obligations placed on counsel for both parties . . . . . . . . . . 263
Crown counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
Defence counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
The obligations of the state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
PART D: ELABORATION AND
EXTENSION OF THE GLADUE
PRINCIPLES BY LOWER COURTS . . . . . . 277

CHAPTER 12: JOINT SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCE . 280
A clarification of the law in Anthony-Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
The public interest test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
The need for joint submissions to be thoroughly justified . . . . . 283
Counsel must account for Gladue principles when justifying joint submissions  . . . . 283
Courts must consider Gladue principles in how they
approach joint submissions . . . . 293
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

CHAPTER 13: BAIL HEARINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
General legal and constitutional principles governing bail decisions  . . . . . . 302
Caveats to the application of the Gladue principles to bail decisions  . . . . 304
Assessing bail criteria and release plans in light of systemic discrimination in bail  . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Calibrating bail conditions to avoid contributing to systemic discrimination . . 311
Attention to an Indigenous accused’s culture, beliefs, laws,or community standards . . . .  314
Public confidence in the administration of justice must account for Gladue principles  . . . . . . . . 317
Case-specific information may be necessary but full reports are not always feasible  . . . . . . . 317
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 319

CHAPTER 14: DANGEROUS OFFENDERS . . . . . . . . . . . 320
A clarification of the law in Boutilier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Future treatment prospects must be considered at both stages . . 323
Proportionality and the Gladue principles must
be applied at the penalty stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
The principle of restraint guides the penalty stage . . . . . . . . . . 325
Justice Karakatsanis dissents on risk of grossly
disproportionate sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
The application of the Gladue principles at the designation stage … 326
The need for detailed case-specific information . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
The application of actuarial risk assessment tools to Indigenous people . . . 330
Conclusion . . . . . . . 331

CHAPTER 15: YOUNG PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
The general application of Gladue principles
to the sentencing of young persons . . . . . . 333
The Gladue principles in Crown applications to sentence youths as adults . . . . . 335
Conclusion . . . . . . . . 340

CHAPTER 16: COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . 341
General principles governing the consideration of collateral consequences . . . . . 342
Unique circumstances can translate into unique collateral consequences . .  . . . 344
Systemic factors can amplify common collateral consequences . . 345
Prison sentences may have collateral consequences for some Indigenous people . . . . . . . 345
Indigenous community punishments as collateral consequences . . .  . 348
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 350

CHAPTER 17: ABSOLUTE AND CONDITIONAL DISCHARGES . . . . 351
The statutory test for granting an absolute or conditional discharge . . . . . . 352
The Gladue principles apply to an application for a discharge . . 354
Systemic and background factors can impact an Indigenous person’s best interests . . . 356
The Gladue principles impact whether a discharge is contrary to the public interest  . . . 357
Conclusion . . . .. . . . . 359

CHAPTER 18: SENTENCING IN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CONTEXTS . . . . 360
Regulatory prosecutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
Professional discipline hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
Contempt of courtContempt of Court Failure to obey a court order.  A disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language. Civil Contempt:  Noncompliance with a court order or rule that affects another person; punishment is administered to compel compliance. proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
Conclusion . . . . . .. . 370
CONCLUSION . .. . . . . 371
TABLE OF CASES  . . . . 373
INDEX

“The Gladue principles insist upon the acknowledgement and accommodation of the unique circumstances of Indigenous people in sentencing. To do so, courts must confront the many complex ways in which Indigenous societies and individuals are differently situated. When the Supreme Court of Canada articulated its distinct and accommodative methodology for the sentencing of Indigenous people it did so building on an emerging jurisprudence, evolving practices and programming in both institutional and community settings, a deep body of knowledge amassed by several prior commissions of inquiry and task forces, and a thorough legislative debate”.