Respecting Judicial Authority While Acknowledging Unusual Decisions

In Canada, judges hold an essential role as impartial decision makers and are entrusted to apply the law fairly and consistently. Their authority carries immense weight on the court system and respecting their decisions is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the court system. Though everyone may not always agree with a judge’s decision, it is important to remember that judges are bound by legal principles and precedents. However, there are rare occasions where a judicial decision may seem unusual. One such instance occurred in R. v. Leclaire, 2025 ONSC 4203.

In this matter, the Respondent plead guilty to impaired driving for the fifth time. This time the Respondent was impaired by drug, namely fentanyl (amongst other drugs), and was driving while under a 2-year driving prohibition. The Crown made it clear that they would be filing a Notice of Application for Increased Penalty, and that by statute the Respondent would need to serve 4 months of jail time, but Justice Jalali had a different plan:

[16]           Her Honour then asked the Crown: “Mr. Jackson what would you do if I sentenced the gentleman to four months conditional anyways?”

[17]           The Crown responded, “That is not permitted by statute”.

[18]           Her Honour replied: “I know, but what if I do?”                   

The Crown replied: “I will have to seek advice from my management”.

Despite the mandatory minimum sentence, Justice Jalali, who was appointed in October 2018, imposed a four-month conditional sentence with house arrest, citing mitigating factors. While a judge must consider mitigating factors in sentencing, the penalty she imposed disregarded the statute and ultimately undermined the administration of justice.

The matter was brought back before the appellate court where the appellate judge set aside Justice Jalali’s sentence. The Respondent was instead sentenced to four months jail. Justice Jalali’s decision not only failed to apply the law correctly but also resulted in a waste of the court’s time and resources sparking quite the backlash on social media platforms and online forums from civilians voicing their opinions and discontentment.

Disclaimer: The content shared here is intended for informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice.