Carolyn Elaine Filgiano

The appellant, Christopher Joseph Battisti, appealed his conviction for uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm and his subsequent sentence.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of credibility, alleged misapprehension of evidence, sufficiency of reasons, and the fitness of the imposed sentence, particularly a three-year probation term with a travel notification condition.

The Superior Court of Justice, sitting as a summary conviction appeal court, found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or credibility, nor in the application of the criminal burden of proof.

The court also determined that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient for meaningful appellate review and that the probation condition, being protective rather than punitive, was not demonstrably unfit.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

The appellant, Ronald Contreras, appealed a sentence imposed for breach of probation.

The sentencing judge departed from a joint submission by adding a 12-month probation order with an absolute abstinence condition for alcohol and illegal substances.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's failure to defer to the joint submission, inadequate consideration of Gladue principles, insufficient opportunity for counsel to make submissions, and inadequate reasons for sentence.

The Superior Court found multiple errors in principle, including a lack of understanding of Gladue principles and the high threshold for rejecting joint submissions.

The appeal was allowed, and the probation order was deleted.

Two sentencing proceedings heard together concerning the availability of intermittent sentences in the Southwest Region.

The first accused pleaded guilty to simple possession of 16 fentanyl patches contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The second accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving, a second offence.

Both accused sought intermittent sentences to maintain employment.

The court learned of the Intermittent Community Work Program, which would allow offenders to serve their entire custodial sentences in the community through temporary absence permits.

The court found that this program rendered the sentences non-custodial in nature and therefore incompatible with the statutory requirement for "appropriate accommodation to ensure compliance" under section 732(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court declined to impose intermittent sentences and remanded both offenders into custody.