|
Criminal - Sentencing - CCC s.718. R. v. R.G.
In R. v. R.G. (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered CCC 718.2 statutory sentencing factors:[5] To start, we reject the appellant’s submission that the sentencing judge erred by finding that these assaults occurred in the context of an intimate partner relationship, an aggravating factor on sentence pursuant to s. 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code. The facts acknowledged by the appellant on his plea made it clear that this was a “dating relationship”; this was not their first, or even second, date, and this was not a one-night stand. Section 718.2(a)(ii) is not confined to long-term relationships, or to those who cohabit. The Criminal Code defines “intimate partner” as a “current or former spouse, common-law partner and dating partner”.
[6] We agree with the Crown that to accept the appellant’s arguments would be to enter into an amorphous and value-laden debate over whether the relationship was “serious enough” to trigger this section. The fact is that the appellant and the complainant had a pre-existing relationship, and this relationship is what allowed the appellant to arrange to meet the complainant in her home, where he betrayed her trust by sexually assaulting her. A breach of trust of this nature is what s. 718.2(a)(ii) is intended to address. As this court held in R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, 162 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 76, “a pre-existing relationship between the accused and complainant places them in a position of trust that can only be seen as an aggravating feature on sentencing”; see also R. v. N.D., 2024 ONCA 777, at para. 42. . R. v. Saini
In R. v. Saini (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the statutory factors for criminal sentencing in CCC s.718:[25] The sentencing judge referred to the principles relevant to sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. The trial judge considered the mitigating factors such as the fact that the appellant was a 76-year-old first-time offender at the time of trial, with strong family support, no prior driving record who suffered from chronic renal disease and sleep apnea. He noted that the correctional authorities are able to address those medical issues.
[26] He also noted that the law requires that sentences not exceed the lifetime of an individual.
[27] However, the trial judge also appreciated the importance of denunciation and deterrence as four people died, including two children, and nine others suffered life-changing injuries. He found that the appellant did not take responsibility for his actions and appeared to have “no sincere appreciation of how his driving continues to pose a very serious harm to others.” As such, although neither party raised specific deterrence as an issue on sentence, the trial judge was entitled to and did consider the need for specific deterrence.
[28] The sentence was well within the range for similar offences committed in similar circumstances: see, e.g., R. v. Regier, 2011 ONCA 557, 282 O.A.C. 392; R. v. Bhangal, 2016 ONCA 857.
[29] In short, the sentencing judge considered the factors set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, and imposed a sentence that was not demonstrably unfit. Significant deference is owed on sentencing: R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at paras. 25-26; R. v. R.A., 2021 ONCA 126, 154 O.R. (3d) 552, at paras. 30-32.
|
