ARCTIC OBITER

sentence of 14 months less 83 days
in jail and one year probation for
the following offences: assault,
causing a disturbance, breaching
an undertaking, being unlawfully
in a dwelling house, resisting
arrest, and breach of recognizance.
The assault involved the offender
spitting on his niece and another
woman who intervened in an
argument between the offender
and his spouse. The 33-year-old
offender had a lengthy, related
criminal record. The Crown
submissions suggested a global 10-
month sentence that included three
months for the assault. Defence
counsel did not take issue with
three months for the assault but
suggested an eight-month global
sentence. The sentencing judge
imposed a sentence that included
six months’ jail plus a year of
probation for the assault.
Appeal dismissed – The sentencing
judge erred by not fulfilling his
duty to alert counsel to his
concerns about the range of
sentence proposed, to advise them
that he was inclined to sentence
outside that range, and to give
them an opportunity to make
additional submissions. Just
because the trial judge chose to
give the guilty plea little weight
does not mean he failed to take it
into account. Six months is the
maximum sentence on a summary
conviction assault.
However the
“worst offender, worst offence”
principle no longer operates as a
constraint on a maximum sentence
being imposed. In this case, the six
-month sentence was not outside
the usual range for spitting
offences. The six-month sentence
should not be considered in
isolation from the global sentence
or from the other offences for
which the appellant was sentenced
at the same time.
The global
sentence was not unfit in the
circumstances.
~
LANDLORD/TENANT LAW –
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Jeske v Yellowknife Housing
Authority
2013 NWTSC 17 (March 25, 2013)
Presiding: Justice L.A. Charbonneau
For the Appellant: N. Smith (w/ leave of the Court)
For the Respondent: E. Gulberg
The respondent sought and
obtained from the Rental Officer a
termination of the tenant’s lease
and an eviction order on the basis
of the tenant’s failure to pay her
electricity bill. The tenant
appealed.
The purpose of the Residential
Tenancies Act is to provide an
a c c e s s i b l e , i n f o r m a l a n d
expeditious process to deal with
disputes between landlords and
tenants.
The applicable standard
of review, where the Rental Officer
acts within the scope of his
jurisdiction, is reasonableness. The
Rental Officer viewed the tenant’s
failure to pay her electricity bill as
a serious breach and explained
why. His conclusion was not
unreasonable. The question on
appeal is not whether the Renal
Office could have made another
decision, or whether the court
would have made a different
decision. Given the standard of
review, the court is unable to grant
the relief sought by the appellant.
~
FAMILY LAW – INTERIM
SPOUSAL SUPPORT -
QUANTUM
Michelin v McLean
2013 NWTSC 18 (March 27, 2013)
Presiding: Justice V.A. Schuler
For the Applicant: J. Walsh
For the Respondent: K. Allison
The parties were in a common-law
relationship from 1986 to 2012.
The respondent did not dispute the
applicant’s entitlement to interim
support. The only issue was
quantum. The respondent had an
annual income of $80,000. The
court considered the applicant to
have no income, as she was
receiving social assistance which
would be reduced by any spousal
support.
$2,400/month spousal support
24 ■ MARCH/APRIL 2013 ARCTIC OBITER