Justice Kasirer wrote as follows (at paras. 2-13, 77):

"Could the sentencing judge credit Ms. Basque for the driving prohibition period already served, notwithstanding the combined effect of that one‑year mandatory minimum prohibition and the direction — codified in s. 719(1) Cr. C. — that except where otherwise provided, a sentence commences when it is imposed?

If not for the requirement in s. 259(1)(a), granting credit would undoubtedly be possible. Indeed, in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089 — a case that did not concern a mandatory minimum prohibition — this Court confirmed that there is a common law judicial discretion to grant credit for a pre‑sentence driving prohibition. This discretion is a natural extension of the longstanding practice of crediting offenders for periods of pre‑sentence custody.

Provided that Parliament respects the relevant constitutional constraints, it can, of course, enact legislation that displaces the common law rule allowing credit to be granted for a pre‑sentence driving prohibition. Ms. Basque does not challenge the constitutionality of s. 259(1)(a) but argues that her request for credit is not limited in any way by the imposition of the mandatory minimum prohibition. The respondent Crown, relying on the majority reasons of the Court of Appeal, argues instead that granting credit in this case would conflict with the application of the one‑year minimum prohibition, even though the relevant statutory provision is silent on crediting.

Respectfully, I believe that the respondent is mistaken. In my view, granting credit based on the common law discretion recognized in Lacasse is perfectly consistent with the application of the minimum prohibition in s. 259(1)(a) Cr. C. and with the rule requiring that a sentence commence when it is imposed in s. 719(1) Cr. C. It was therefore open to the sentencing judge to take into account the period of 21 months already served by Ms. Basque, as this would not undermine Parliament’s intent.

The discretionary authority to grant credit under the common law can coexist harmoniously with judicial adherence to a mandatory minimum established by statute. This coexistence rests on the well‑known distinction between the concepts of “punishment”, understood as a deprivation, and of “sentence”, understood as a judicial decision (in French, the distinction between “punition” and “sentence”, where the term “peine” can also be used to convey both meanings). This distinction, considered by Rosenberg J.A. in the context of credit for pre‑sentence custody in R. v. McDonald (1998), 40 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.), was taken up by Arbour J. of this Court in R. v. Wust, 2000 SCC 18, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455, at paras. 35‑37, with particular attention to the multiple meanings of the French term “peine”. From this perspective, Arbour J. explained that while the term “peine” used in the sense of “punishment” refers to the total punishment imposed on an offender, the same word when used to mean “sentence” refers to the decision rendered by the court. It bears noting that a sentence is always prospective in order to prevent the judicial practice of backdating sentences (see s. 719(1) Cr. C.).

As a general rule, the purpose of a mandatory minimum is to impose on an offender an effective punishment of a specified minimum length. This is so because the objectives underlying a minimum punishment are achieved equally well whether the punishment is served before or after the offender is sentenced. In the instant case, the mandatory minimum provided for in s. 259(1)(a) is no exception to this rule.

Properly interpreted, s. 259(1)(a) requires the court to impose a total punishment of one year to be served by the offender, not to hand down a sentence imposing a one‑year prohibition that must necessarily be served prospectively. As Rosenberg J.A. noted in McDonald, Parliament’s intention is respected whether the punishment is served before or after the offender is sentenced, because the effect on the offender is the same in either case. Interpreted in this way, s. 259(1)(a) did not prohibit the sentencing judge from “reducing” the sentence by granting credit for the pre‑sentence driving prohibition period, as long as the total punishment remained consistent with the minimum prescribed by Parliament.

By the time the trial judgment was rendered in this case, it had been 21 months since Ms. Basque had essentially “begun serving [her] sentence” (see R. v. Sharma, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 814, at p. 818, cited with approval by Wagner J., as he then was, in Lacasse, at para. 113). When considered from this perspective, the objectives of the minimum punishment set out in s. 259(1)(a) had already been met — and even surpassed. In such a context, granting credit to “reduce” the length of the prohibition imposed on Ms. Basque does not conflict with s. 259(1)(a) because she has already served a driving prohibition period exceeding the one‑year minimum required by that provision. Crediting also addresses the considerations of fairness and justice touched on in Wust, including what Paciocco J.A. usefully described in an academic paper as “the aversion to double punishment” (D. M. Paciocco, “The Law of Minimum Sentences: Judicial Responses and Responsibility” (2015), 19 Can. Crim. L.R. 173, at p. 211).

In short, no conflict arises from the concurrent application of s. 259(1)(a) and the common law rule that allows credit to be granted. At the time of sentencing, the court is required to impose the one‑year mandatory minimum punishment, but there is nothing in the statute that prevents it from then granting credit. Similarly, granting credit is not contrary to the requirement set out in s. 719(1) Cr. C. because only the sentence has to commence when it is imposed, not the one‑year minimum punishment served under s. 259(1)(a). These statutory provisions therefore do not displace the discretion of sentencing judges that was recognized in Lacasse. Of course, Parliament remains free, within the constraints imposed by the Constitution, to limit this discretion, but it must do so through a “clear provision to that effect” (Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 521, at para. 56). There is no such provision here, as s. 259(1)(a) is silent regarding the granting of credit.

Furthermore, the codification of the discretion to give credit for pre‑sentence custody in s. 719(3) Cr. C. has no impact on this appeal. Like s. 259(1)(a), s. 719(3) is unambiguous, and it is also silent with respect to driving prohibitions. Here, the absence of an analogous provision for driving prohibitions does not signify a positive intention by Parliament to eliminate the discretion recognized in Lacasse, a case which, I should add, was decided after s. 719(3) was enacted.

In light of the foregoing, and given that Ms. Basque has already been prohibited from driving for 21 months, the imposition of an additional one‑year prohibition period would amount to a kind of double punishment, contrary to the most fundamental requirements of justice and fairness. Conscious of this fact, the sentencing judge ordered a one‑year driving prohibition but found that Ms. Basque had already satisfied this condition. However, he backdated Ms. Basque’s sentence to achieve this result. With respect, this was an error. He could quite properly have imposed the one‑year mandatory minimum punishment required by s. 259(1)(a) Cr. C., stated that a sentence commences when it is imposed under s. 719(1) Cr. C., and then granted credit for the pre‑sentence driving prohibition period by exercising his common law discretion, which has not been displaced by the Criminal Code.

For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. I would restore the judgment of the summary conviction appeal court and reinstate the sentencing judge’s conclusions in part, for different reasons. I would specify that the appellant has already served the mandatory minimum prohibition provided for in s. 259(1)(a) Cr. C.

...

While not necessary in order to decide this appeal, I take note of the Crown’s concession that it was inappropriate to ask that Ms. Basque’s release be accompanied by a driving prohibition. The Court of Appeal was correct in its unanimous view that the release conditions imposed on Ms. Basque were unreasonable. She was ultimately prohibited from driving for 21 months and was thus treated more harshly than another offender not subject to a pre‑sentence driving prohibition in otherwise similar, or more serious, circumstances. It is therefore understandable that the Court of Appeal was concerned about justice and fairness when it stayed the execution of the sentence imposed on Ms. Basque. The same preoccupation finds expression in the lower courts’ judgments, even though they decided the case differently. The unanimous concern of the Court of Appeal aligns, in substance if not in law, with the solution proposed here. But with all due respect for the contrary view, reaching this solution does not require staying the execution of Ms. Basque’s sentence. From a legal standpoint, she has served the mandatory minimum punishment provided for in s. 259(1)(a)."

Note: The summary and body are drawn from Eugene Meehan’s SupremeAdvocacy Weekly Updates for the Law Community.