- Concurrent sentences are served at the same time, so the total time served equals the length of the longest single sentence.
- Consecutive sentences are served one after another, so the total equals the sum of all the individual sentences.
- Under section 718.3 of the Criminal Code, sentences are presumed to be concurrent unless a court orders otherwise, and offences arising from the same transaction generally lean concurrent, while unrelated offences lean consecutive.
- The totality principle, under section 718.2(c), requires that a combined consecutive sentence not be unduly long or harsh relative to the offender's overall culpability — courts can and do adjust downward to respect it.
- Some offences — including certain firearms offences under section 85 — carry mandatory consecutive sentencing provisions set out directly in the Criminal Code.
- The 2-year threshold determines where a sentence is served: under two years in a provincial institution, two years or more in a federal penitentiary — this affects parole eligibility timing.
The Short Answer
When a person is sentenced on more than one offence at the same time, the court must decide whether those sentences run concurrently (at the same time) or consecutively (one after the other). The choice can drastically change the total time served, which is why the Criminal Code builds in both a starting presumption and a hard check — the totality principle — to keep the combined result proportionate.
Concurrent Sentences Explained
A concurrent sentence runs at the same time as another sentence. If someone receives two sentences of 12 months and 18 months to be served concurrently, the total time actually served is 18 months — the length of the longer sentence — because both clocks run together and the shorter sentence is effectively absorbed into the longer one.
Consecutive Sentences Explained
A consecutive sentence begins only after the previous sentence has finished. Using the same example, if those same two sentences of 12 months and 18 months were ordered to run consecutively, the total time served would be 30 months — the sum of both sentences added together.
| Scenario | Concurrent Total | Consecutive Total |
|---|---|---|
| 12 months + 18 months | 18 months | 30 months |
| 6 months + 6 months + 6 months | 6 months | 18 months |
| 2 years + 3 years | 3 years | 5 years |
The Default: Concurrent Under s.718.3
Section 718.3 of the Criminal Code is the source of a court's authority to order consecutive sentences, and it operates against a general presumption in favour of concurrent sentences unless a court specifically decides otherwise. This default reflects a broader principle in Canadian sentencing: punishment should be proportionate to overall culpability, not simply stacked indefinitely as a matter of course every time an offender faces more than one charge.
The “Same Transaction” Test
Courts generally look at whether the offences arose out of the same transaction or series of events, or whether they represent genuinely separate and unrelated criminal conduct:
- Same transaction, tends toward concurrent — for example, multiple charges arising from a single incident, like assault and a related weapons charge from the same altercation.
- Separate, unrelated transactions, tends toward consecutive — for example, offences committed on different dates, against different victims, or in unrelated circumstances.
Someone is convicted of assault and uttering threats arising from the same single altercation with the same person on the same night — these are likely to attract concurrent sentences, since they form one continuous transaction. If that same person is also convicted of an unrelated fraud offence committed against a different victim months earlier, that sentence is more likely to be consecutive, since it is a genuinely separate criminal act.
The Totality Principle: The Key Check
The totality principle, reflected in section 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code, requires that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined total must not be unduly long or harsh in relation to the offender's overall culpability. Even where several individually calculated sentences would technically add up to a very long total, a court can — and regularly does — adjust the final combined sentence downward to keep the outcome proportionate.
In practice, courts often work through sentencing for multiple offences in stages: first deciding whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively, then calculating an appropriate individual sentence for each offence, and finally standing back to assess whether the combined total, once added up, remains a fit and proportionate outcome for this offender as a whole. If it doesn't, the totality principle allows — and requires — an adjustment.
When Consecutive Sentences Are Common
Consecutive sentences tend to be ordered where:
- There are multiple, distinct victims — reflecting the separate harm caused to each person
- Offences occurred on different dates or in genuinely separate incidents
- An offence was committed while already on release — for example, breaching bail or probation conditions while facing existing charges, which reflects an independent decision to reoffend rather than a single course of conduct
- Certain offence categories carry statutory requirements for consecutive sentencing, discussed below
Mandatory Consecutive Sentences
In a limited number of situations, Parliament has removed judicial discretion entirely and requires consecutive sentencing by law. The clearest example is section 85 of the Criminal Code, which addresses using a firearm in the commission of an offence — a sentence imposed under this section must be served consecutively to any other sentence arising from the same event and to any other sentence the person is already subject to at the time. Other specific provisions in the Code impose similar mandatory consecutive requirements in narrow, defined circumstances.
Mandatory consecutive sentencing provisions are the exception, not the rule — they apply to specific offence categories that Parliament has singled out by name, not to criminal sentencing generally.
Impact on Custody and Parole Eligibility
How sentences stack has real, practical consequences beyond the headline number. Under the Criminal Code's custody framework, a sentence of two years or more is served in a federal penitentiary, administered by the Correctional Service of Canada, while a sentence of less than two years is served in a provincial institution. Because parole eligibility is generally tied to the total aggregate sentence a person is serving, consecutive sentences that push a combined total across that two-year line — or well beyond it — can meaningfully change both where someone serves their time and how long it takes before they become eligible for parole.
Two sentences of 18 months served concurrently stay under the two-year threshold and are served provincially. The same two sentences served consecutively total 36 months — moving the person into the federal system entirely, with different institutions, programming, and parole timelines.
Common Myths
Myth: “Multiple charges always mean the sentences get added together.”
False. Concurrent sentencing is the statutory default under section 718.3, and offences arising from a single transaction commonly result in concurrent, not consecutive, sentences.
Myth: “A judge can stack as many consecutive sentences as they want.”
False. The totality principle specifically exists to prevent a combined sentence from becoming disproportionate, and courts routinely adjust downward to respect it, even when consecutive sentences are otherwise appropriate.
Myth: “Consecutive sentencing is rare and only for the most extreme cases.”
Not necessarily. Consecutive sentences are common in ordinary circumstances too, such as offences involving multiple victims or an offence committed while already on release for other charges — it isn't reserved only for exceptional cases.
Facing sentencing on multiple charges and want to understand how concurrency could affect your outcome? Call our Toronto criminal defence lawyers at 416-274-2222 for a free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
A concurrent sentence is served at the same time as another sentence, meaning the total time actually served is equal to the longest individual sentence. A consecutive sentence is served after another sentence finishes, meaning the total time served is the sum of both sentences added together.
Section 718.3 of the Criminal Code establishes a presumption that sentences are served concurrently unless a court specifically orders otherwise. In general, offences arising out of the same transaction or event tend toward concurrent sentences, while separate, unrelated criminal transactions tend toward consecutive sentences.
The totality principle, reflected in section 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code, requires that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined total must not be unduly long or harsh relative to the offender's overall culpability. It acts as a final check, allowing a court to adjust the total sentence downward even if the individually calculated sentences would otherwise add up to something disproportionate.
Consecutive sentences are common where there are multiple distinct victims, where offences occurred on different dates or in unrelated incidents, or where an offence was committed while the person was already on bail, probation, or otherwise subject to a court order for existing charges. Certain offences also carry mandatory consecutive sentencing requirements set out directly in the Criminal Code.
Yes, in specific circumstances. For example, section 85 of the Criminal Code, which addresses using a firearm in the commission of an offence, requires that sentence to be served consecutively to any other sentence arising from the same event and to any other sentence the person is already subject to. Other specific provisions in the Criminal Code impose similar mandatory consecutive requirements in narrow circumstances.
Yes. Under the Criminal Code's custody framework, a sentence of two years or more is served in a federal penitentiary, while a sentence of less than two years is served in a provincial institution. Consecutive sentences that push a combined total to two years or more can shift where — and under what system — a person serves their sentence.
Parole eligibility is generally tied to the total aggregate sentence being served, so a longer combined consecutive sentence generally means a longer period before parole eligibility is reached, compared to shorter concurrent sentences or a sentence just under the federal threshold.
No. The decision must be grounded in accepted sentencing principles, such as whether the offences arose from separate transactions, and it remains subject to the totality principle, which prevents the combined sentence from becoming disproportionate to the offender's overall culpability.
It depends heavily on the nature of the charges and whether they arise from a single event or separate incidents. A lawyer can assess how a court is likely to approach concurrency in your specific circumstances and help you understand realistic outcomes.