W A R N I N G

The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding under s. 486(3) of the Criminal Code, concerning the identity of and any evidence that would tend to identify the complainant(s), shall continue. As relevant in this case, s. 486(3) and s. 486(5) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under s. 486(3), read:

486.(3) Subject to subsection (4), where an accused is charged with

(a) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 346 or 347,

(b) an offence under section 144, 145, 149, 156, 245 or 246 of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or

(c) an offence under section 146, 151, 153, 155, 157, 166 or 167 of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988,

the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that the identity of the complainant or of a witness and any information that could disclose the identity of the complainant or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way.

(5) Every one who fails to comply with an order made pursuant to subsection (3) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

DATE: 20040407

DOCKET: C40666

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) – and – V. L. (Respondent)

BEFORE:

MACPHERSON, SIMMONS JJ.A. and JURIANSZ J. (ad hoc)

COUNSEL:

Susan Magotiaux

for the appellant

Leora Shemesh

for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

April 5, 2004

The Crown appeals the sentence imposed on September 4, 2003 by Justice Russell J. Otter of the Ontario Court of Justice.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] Counsel are agreed that the sentencing judge and trial counsel were misinformed about the sentence the respondent received for the drug offence (by four months). We doubt that this would have made any difference to the sentence he imposed.

[2] It is clear that the trial judge anchored his sentence in a careful assessment of the totality principle. That drove his decisions with respect to the consecutive versus concurrent and custodial versus conditional issues. Although his finding of nexus between the drug and sex offences was perhaps something of a stretch, his reasons read as a whole do support the sentence he imposed. He was acutely aware of the unique and difficult circumstances of this offence and, in our view, imposed an appropriate sentence.

[3] The appeal is dismissed.