R. v. Antaya, 2022 ONCA 819, November 25, 2022, at paragraphs 8 and 9:
It is clear that the remedial options set out in s. 742.6(9) represent a sliding scale of options available to a sentencing judge, from least restrictive (take no action), to moderately restrictive (change the optional conditions or order the offender to serve a portion of the unexpired sentence in custody and then resume the conditional sentence, with or without a change in conditions), to most restrictive (terminate the conditional sentence and direct that the offender be committed to custody for the balance of the sentence).
As with any other sentencing decision, determining the appropriate order for a breach of a conditional sentence order is an individualized process. In deciding which order is appropriate in a given case, the sentencing judge must consider all of the circumstances, including the nature and circumstances of the breach; the circumstances of the offender; the time remaining on the conditional sentence order; and the ordinary principles of sentencing (including, for example, denunciation, general and specific deterrence, proportionality, and restraint): Langley, at paras. 6-7, 13. In cases where, as is sometimes done, the conditional sentence imposed was longer than an appropriate sentence of incarceration would have been, this may also be a relevant factor. These factors must be considered within the particular context of the conditional sentencing regime.