Court of Appeal for Ontario
R. v. Kane
Chirstopher Hicks (Hicks Block Adams), for the appellant;
(C34210)
[1]
Conviction Appeal
By the Court: We will not consider the constitutional argument raised for the first time on appeal. The trial judge did not rely on the reverse onus in s. 349(1) and in any event the Crown had no opportunity to put s. 1 evidence before the court.
2The trial judge did not consider the counts separately and he failed to address the legal issues raised in at least some of the counts concerning the appellant's legal status when he entered the apartments. Each of the unlawful entry counts also raised different factual issues.
3The trial judge never considered the reliability of the evidence of the complainants as opposed to their credibility.
4The inadequacies in the reasons require that the convictions on the unlawfully in a dwelling house charges be quashed. Those convictions are set aside and a new trial is ordered. The fraud convictions and the conviction for attempted fraud stand.
[5]
Sentence Appeal
The sentences imposed in the fraud counts were illegal. Two years is the maximum.
6The appellant has a terrible record for similar offences. He preys on elderly citizens and may be characterized as close to the worst offender. He deserves little if any credit for his pretrial incarceration since he was on parole when arrested on these charges.
7We think an appropriate sentence is 6 months consecutive on each fraud charge and 3 months consecutive on the attempted fraud charge for a total sentence of 27 months.
8In imposing this sentence we have taken into consideration that these 5 offences were obviously part of a larger scheme as indicated by the evidence adduced on the other counts. We have considered this an aggravating factor and the Crown may wish to take this into consideration in deciding whether to prosecute a new trial on the unlawfully in a dwelling house charges.
9The sentence is varied accordingly.
Order accordingly.