Alberta Court of Appeal considers jump principle in determining appropriate sentence

Law360 Canada (January 21, 2026, 12:19 PM EST) --

John L. Hill

Before dawn on a winter morning in Calgary, a brief encounter in a deserted school parking lot set in motion a chain of events that would carry a 20-year-old man from street-level allegations to years of appellate scrutiny and a penitentiary sentence measured in years.

In the early morning hours of Jan. 6, 2021, an individual known as ME met Philippe Lugela in a school parking lot in northeast Calgary. ME told the Calgary Police Service (CPS) that he had been robbed at gunpoint. ME identified Lugela as his assailant.

Based on the information obtained during their investigation, Lugela was under CPS surveillance for several hours on Jan. 7, 2021. The resources also included the use of the CPS helicopter. Lugela was operating a motor vehicle registered to his sister. Many members of the CPS followed him, and he was ultimately arrested in a high-risk takedown in Airdrie, Alta., by the CPS tactical squad.

A subsequent search of the vehicle, pursuant to a search warrant dated Jan. 8, 2021, located a significant amount of Canadian currency and a loaded Smith and Wesson MP9 handgun inside a black bag found inside a Skip the Dishes bag in the vehicle’s trunk. At the time of his arrest, Lugela was subject to a firearms prohibition order.

Police arrested Lugela, who was 20 years old and subject to bail conditions prohibiting possession of firearms. He also had a youth criminal record involving possession of a restricted and prohibited firearm with ammunition. CPS also obtained a search warrant for his parents’ home, where he resided. The search uncovered controlled substances (methamphetamine, fentanyl and cocaine), a rifle, live ammunition and a suppressor.

Lugela was convicted of multiple firearm offences, three counts of simple possession of controlled substances and three breaches of his release order (R. v. Lugela, 2023 ABCJ 288). His appeal from conviction was dismissed by the Alberta Court of Appeal (R. v. Lugela, 2025 ABCA 194). In that appeal, he challenged the Crown’s reliance on circumstantial evidence. However, the appeal failed when the Appeal Court held that the trial judge had ample evidence to conclude that Lugela had a handgun and knew it was loaded.

He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 7.5 years’ imprisonment, reduced to a global sentence of six years for totality, reflecting that the handgun was not brandished, fired or used for overt intimidation. After receiving credit for 445 days of pretrial custody, he was left with four years and 285 days to serve. A lifetime weapons prohibition was also imposed.

Lugela next appealed his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider mitigating factors, including his age, mental health and the “jump principle,” resulting in a demonstrably unfit sentence (R. v. Lugela, 2026 ABCA 10). He based his appeal on three grounds: (a) the sentencing judge failed to consider his age as a mitigating factor, (b) his mental health factors were not given the significance required; and (3) the jump principle was ignored. The appellate court rejected these arguments, finding no error in principle and concluding that the sentence was fit.

The Appeal Court found that the sentencing judge was aware of and considered Lugela’s age and personal circumstances. The judge’s consideration of Lugela’s youthfulness was evident when reviewing Lugela’s significant criminal history and bleak rehabilitation prospects.

Lugela claimed that his diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and perhaps post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) should be considered in the evaluation of reduced moral capability and cited R. v. Roberts, 2020 ABCA 434. A sense of entitlement, deceitfulness, manipulation, lack of empathy, emotional distance, aloofness, irresponsibility, recklessness, impulsivity and impetuousness characterize ASPD.

However, the Appeal Court was unconvinced that Lugela had impaired judgment or difficulty understanding the nature or consequences of his actions. A presentence report noted that Lugela was unwilling to remove himself from a criminal lifestyle and chose not to seek rehabilitation or treatment. There was no diagnosis of PTSD.

The court considered reliance on the jump principle as “one of the least significant mitigating factors” (R. v. Muyser, 2009 ABCA 116). Ordinarily, the principle prevents imposing a disproportionately severe sentence on a repeat offender for the commission of a similar, non-escalating offence. Yet the Alberta Court of Appeal assumed the principle meant not re-penalizing an offender for prior acts. In 2021, Lugela received a sentence of 3½ years for firing a gun in a residential area. Three years later, he was assessed 7½ years (reduced to six) for possession of a firearm. Even if the illegal acts were the same, this would represent a jump in sentencing, doubling the penalty imposed. One would assume that firing a gun in a residential area would be more serious than possessing a firearm hidden in a car trunk.

Nevertheless, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the moral culpability and risk to the community warranted the penitentiary term imposed. The sentence was not demonstrably unfit. The appeal from the sentence was dismissed.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.