Mr. Joe appealed his sentence of 43 months imprisonment plus three years’ probation for one count of refusal to provide a breath sample, one count of impaired driving and breach of an undertaking (see April 2, 2017 blog entry). He argued that the sentencing judge erred in failing to adequately consider his Aboriginal background, his moral blameworthiness and in his application of the principle of rehabilitation. The appeal was allowed: the threshold for appellate intervention is reached if the sentencing judge erred in principle and that error had an impact on sentence; or the sentencing judge imposed a sentence that is demonstrably unfit. Here, the trial judge erred in principle in three ways: failing to give tangible effect to Mr. Joe’s Aboriginal background; in effect, requiring Mr. Joe to demonstrate a causal connection between his Aboriginal circumstances and the offence; and failing to give proper or adequate weight to the objective of assisting in Mr. Joe’s rehabilitation. R. v. Joe, 2017 YKCA 13