Callous and inaccurate to undercount COVID imprisonment

R v Woods, 2025 ONCA 433: It was "injudicious" and legally wrong for the sentencing judge to fail to credit the defendant for being incarcerated during the COVID-19 pandemic simply because everyone was experience some degree of hardship. Per Gomery JA: "It is both callous and inaccurate to equate the extreme restrictions on detainees’ liberty during prolonged lockdowns with the restrictions on the activities of those not in jail during the COVID-19 pandemic."

A very welcome rebuke for what I fear is not so rare an opinion on the bench. I have personally heard judges say some version of this on more than a few occasions. This case puts to bed the idea that there is some equivalence between being confined in one's home and being confined in a 6'x8' cell.

The panel further held that it was wrong for the sentencing judge to deny a defence request for an adjournment to produce lockdown records from the jail. Courts "should give the parties a reasonable opportunity to marshal relevant evidence prior to the sentencing hearing": para 11. Use this case the next time a judge gives you grief over delay for a Gladue or Morris report.

Big ups to Marianne Salih -- big win in a serious case!