Cour+suprême+du+Canada,+Marcotte+c.+Deputy+Attorney+General+(Canada)+et+a

//*Note//: statutory remission refers to the diminishment by ¼ of a sentence by reason of good conduct. It was abolished in 1977 in favour of earned remission.


 * __Facts:__** The appellant was serving a 15 year sentence beginning in 1962. His parole was suspended and subsequently revoked. Authorities deemed the 582 days of statutory remission credited to him to have been forfeited with the revocation of parole.

The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the appellant was not entitled to statutory remission after revocation of parole.


 * __Issues:__** Can a person whose parole has been revoked lose all the statutory revocation credited to him at the time of revocation? (Does s. 25 of the Penitentiary Act apply to s. 16(1) of the Parole Act?)

__**Holding:**__ The appeal should be allowed. Section 25 of the Penitentiary Act does not apply to s. 16(1) of the Parole Act.


 * __Reasoning: __**

- The language of s. 22 does not support the notion that statutory remission is a deferred credit; it is therefore a real and immediate entitlement.
 * Forfeiture of statutory remission** is governed by **section 22(3)(4), s. 24 and s. 25 of the Penitentiary Act**. Ss 22 (3) and (4) of the Act provide for forfeiture in case of conviction in a disciplinary court for a disciplinary offence of conviction in a criminal court for (attempted) escape. Section 24 details the accretion of days of remittance. Section 25 states, with reference to the Parole Act, that the “term of imprisonment” includes any period of statutory remission standing to the prisoner’s credit.

- S. 16 is independent and unaffected by s. 25 of the Penitentiary Act; it is not a purpose of the Parole Act to change a sentence or to alter the remaining term of imprisonment in the context of recommitment - Loss of statutory remission cannot be justified as being an effective disincentive to abide by parole conditions.
 * S. 16 of the Parole Ac**t states that the prisoner, when recommitted, serves the unexpired portion of his “term of imprisonment”. As the statutory remission is accrued immediately, it is therefore part of the term of imprisonment.


 * Legislative history** supports the independence of s. 16 of the Parole Act and s. 25 of the Penitentiary Act. An examination of the earlier Ticket of Leave Act suggests Parliament did not intend the language of forfeiture in ss. 22 and 25 to affect the plain meaning of s. 16(1) of the Parole Act.

//Additional: ambiguities of substance found when freedom is at stake should favour the person against whom the statute is being enforced//.
 * __Ratio__:** The stipulations of one Act cannot be applied to another if Parliament did not clearly and demonstrably intend for them to do so.