R. v. AB, 2021 SKCA 119, September 7, 2021, at paragraphs 41 and 42:

These decisions demonstrate that it remains a matter of debate whether, absent proof of a Charter breach, a sentencing judge has the discretion to directly or indirectly reduce a sentence as a result of COVID-19 protocols that have negatively impacted conditions in remand, or that will impact the conditions under which the sentence will be served. In this case, as in McDonald, it is not necessary to decide that question. Even if the impact of COVID-19 protocols can properly be considered in determining a fit sentence, the question of whether it should result in a reduction of the term of incarceration must turn on the evidence relating to the nature of those protocols and the extent to which they impacted the offender. Sentencing is an inherently individualized process: R v M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 500 at para 92. The case law relating to the impact of COVID-19 consistently and correctly reflects that principle in this context.

There is no such evidence relating to the protocols adopted in the correctional institutions where AB spent time on remand or will serve his sentence, or the extent to which they would impact him. For that reason, I am unable to find that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the impact of COVID-19 protocols. The question of whether a sentencing judge has the discretion to provide enhanced credit or to otherwise reduce the term of a sentence where the record is sufficient is properly left for another day.