Sentencing in Line with Society: R v Bunn and the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s Use of Social Understanding as a Justification for Increased Sentences

Abstract

Ever since the pivotal judgement in R v Friesen was given by the Supreme Court of Canada, courts around the country have continued to grapple with its legacy. Recently, the Manitoba Court of Appeal adopted the spirit of Friesen in its recent ruling, R v Bunn, and held that the principles espoused within Friesen should not be limited solely to cases of sexual assault involving children. Building on this principle, the Manitoba Court of Appeal provided non-quantitative guidance citing society’s and the courts’ deepened understanding of harm as a justification to call for increased sentences for sexual assault involving adult victims. This paper analyzes this approach by the Manitoba Court of Appeal through theoretical, practical, and hypothetical lenses. It determines that the MBCA’s approach is underpinned by Durkheimian functionalism and bolsters the courts’ role in upholding societal values, enhances proportionality in sexual assault sentencing, and has hypothetical application as a general rule for raising, or lowering, sentences for offences through non-quantitative guidance.