Amy Rose

The Crown appealed the refusal of a trial judge to make a DNA data bank order pursuant to s. 487.05(1) of the Criminal Code against a young person.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and issued the order sought by the Crown.

The appellant pled guilty to two robberies and an assault, receiving a total sentence of 4.5 years plus 60 days.

He appealed the sentence, arguing it violated the parity principle compared to his co-accused and that the sentencing judge erred by referencing a robbery he was not convicted of.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disparity justified by the appellant's lengthy youth record compared to his first-offender co-accused.

The court also held the factual error was harmless, as the robbery the appellant was convicted of involved similar violence, and the sentence was at the low end of the range for home invasion robbery.

The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment.

On appeal, she introduced fresh evidence that her trial counsel failed to advise the sentencing judge of a co-accused's six-month sentence and the immigration consequences of a sentence of six months or more.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, found the appellant's culpability similar to her co-accused, and reduced the sentence to six months less a day to preserve her right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division.

The appellant, a permanent resident, was convicted of aggravated assault after burning her ten-year-old child with a hot iron.

She appealed her 20-month sentence, seeking a reduction to five months to preserve her right to appeal a removal order under immigration law.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred by failing to expressly consider the specific immigration consequences, the 20-month sentence remained fit and proportionate given the egregious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed.