In R. v. Bourdon (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered evidence of post-offence rehabilitation as a sentencing factor, here in the context of a fresh evidence motion:
D. FRESH EVIDENCE
[29] The appellant seeks to introduce his handouts and worksheets from the AICPM on the basis that they demonstrate his reduced risk to the community. These materials are not attached to nor accompanied by an affidavit which would place them in their proper context.
[30] We dismiss the appellant’s fresh evidence motion on the basis that the proposed evidence does not meet the criteria for admission in Palmer v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759, at p. 775 – it is neither credible or reliable, nor capable of undermining the sentencing judge’s decision – but also because the impact of the AICPM was already thoroughly considered on sentencing. There was ample evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusion that the AICPM would be insufficient to reduce the appellant’s risk to an acceptable level.
[31] As the Supreme Court held in R. v. Sipos, 2014 SCC 47, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 423, at para. 43, an offender’s post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts and prospects will only exceptionally meet the fresh evidence test, and will generally be a matter for correctional authorities who administer the sentence.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
