Gladue Prinicples (Application to Quasi-Criminal)

[[]]

R. v. Karau, 2014 ONCJ 207 (CanLII)

[1] Mr. Karau is Aboriginal and a member of the Lac Des Milles Lac First Nation. He was found guilty of driving while suspended contrary to s.53 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act. The Crown is seeking a sentence of 30 to 60 days in custody, while the defence argues on the basis of Gladue, that there should not be incarceration. The record of the Defendant as filed shows 20 prior convictions for the same offence, making incarceration a possible disposition. The application of Gladue principles is appropriate in these circumstances.

(...)

[3] The duty of a sentencing justice is to ensure that the information available for consideration by the court is sufficient to comply with the principles set out in Gladue. This duty exists when incarceration is to be considered for an Aboriginal person.

==R. v. Henry, 2016 ONCJ 146 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gnqqb>, retrieved on 2025-08-19

16. Although it was not put in issue, I am satisfied that the principles in R. v. Gladue apply to matters such as these pursuant to the Provincial Offences Act. That said, the over-riding focus of the Gladue principles focusses on the over-incarceration of aboriginal offenders. This case does not involve a request for custody and as such, the primary focus of the Gladue principles is not triggered. Notwithstanding, Ms. Dover argues that I must consider the context and circumstances that bring this offender to Court.

17. In that regard, I am aware that the “drive suspended” conviction does allow for both monetary and custodial dispositions and as such, at least the possibility of custody is open for the Court to consider, the position of the Crown notwithstanding. However, I agree that custody is not appropriate or required in this case, regardless the status of the offender as a member of the First Nations community.