R. v. Jimmy, 2023 SKCA 28, March 1, 2023, at paragraphs 53 to 55:

Parity does not mean uniformity in sentencing. It does not shift the court’s focus away from proportionality, but instead serves to inform the proportionality principle by helping to define what is a proportionate sentence…the principle of parity does not detract from the need for sentences to be individualized. Differing personal circumstances between offenders can justify differing sentences for similar offences”

In addition, it is important to bear in mind that parity is also not a matching exercise. The parity principle is grounded in concepts of fairness, but it is rare that the circumstances of two offences and the offenders who commit them will match perfectly (R v Klemenz, 2015 SKCA 89 at paras 45–46, [2016] 1 WWR 234). In applying the parity principle, sentencing judges need to look at more than just whether the nature of the offences and the circumstances of their commission are similar when deciding whether the sentence imposed in another case is a relevant comparator. The personal circumstances of the offenders in like cases are also an important consideration. A sentence must be individualized to the offender and the offence, within the limits permitted by the principles and purposes laid out in the Criminal Code