The appellant appealed his sentence for human trafficking, procuring, and intimidation of a justice system participant.
The global sentence was nine years minus 1.5 years for pre-sentence custody.
The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to account for a change in the sentencing range that occurred after the offences were committed, from two to seven years to four to eight years due to the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence.
The appellant contended that using the earlier range would have resulted in a one-year reduction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that regardless of the range used as a starting point, the ultimate sentence was fit given the egregious facts, including the long duration of offences, complete domination and control of the victim, high moral blameworthiness, use of physical violence, and serious psychological impact.
