COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) –and– RON HADIDA (Respondent)
BEFORE: CATZMAN, WEILER and ROSENBERG JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Christopher Webb, for the appellant Peter Zaduk, for the respondent
HEARD: March 9, 2001
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice David G. Humphrey, sitting without a jury, dated September 17, 1999.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1We agree with the appellant that the trial judge erred in principle in failing to impose punitive conditions as part of the conditional sentence. In fairness to the trial judge he did not have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Proulx. We also have very strong reservations about the appropriateness of a conditional sentence for this offence, which involved some violence and intimidation.
2However, there are a number of circumstances that require that this Crown appeal be dismissed. Like the trial judge, we place great emphasis upon the personal circumstances of the respondent’s wife and children. She suffers from a very serious and, at this time, debilitating disease so that she and the children are totally dependent upon the respondent. The respondent pleaded guilty and testified against the two co-accused. Finally, over four years have passed since the offence was committed and 18 months have passed since the imposition of the sentence. In the circumstances, it would be a very great hardship to now imprison the respondent. Further, given the respondent’s family responsibilities we also do not see that the interests of justice would be served by now imposing the punitive conditions that should have been imposed by the trial judge.
3Accordingly, while leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is dismissed.
Signed:
“M.A. Catzman J.A.” “Karen M. Weiler J.A.” “M. Rosenberg J.A.”