R v Ipeelee

Ipeelee reaffirmed Gladue and held that sentencing judges must apply the Gladue principles in every case involving an Indigenous offender. Failure to do so is reversible error. The decision criticised lower courts for inconsistent application.

Ipeelee, an Inuk man with a serious criminal record, breached a long-term supervision order. The lower courts gave little weight to his Indigenous background, treating Gladue as having limited weight in serious cases.

Do Gladue principles apply with full force in every Indigenous-offender sentencing?

Yes. Sentence reduced.

Gladue principles apply at every sentencing of an Indigenous offender, including for serious offences and breaches. The judge must consider the unique systemic and background factors and culturally appropriate sanctions. Failure constitutes reversible error.

LeBel J observed that 13 years after Gladue the over-representation crisis had worsened. Lower courts had been undermining Gladue by treating it as inapplicable to serious crime or as a soft suggestion. Ipeelee reasserts that Gladue is a substantive obligation.

The leading post-Gladue case. Confirmed in subsequent decisions including R v Boudreault (2018) on financial victim surcharge and R v Sharma (2022) on conditional sentences (where the Court overturned legislative limits in part on Gladue grounds — though Sharma was a federalism / Charter case).

R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 SCR 433.

McLachlin CJ, LeBel J, Deschamps J, Fish J, Abella J, Rothstein J, Cromwell J, Moldaver J, Karakatsanis J