R. v. Mathers, 2009 ONCA 300

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Mathers, 2009 ONCA 300 Date: 2009-04-14 Docket: C49768

Between: Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent) and Paul John Mathers (Appellant)

Before: Weiler, Gillese and Watt JJ.A.

Counsel: Robert C. Sheppard, for the appellant Craig Harper, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: April 7, 2009

On appeal from the sentence imposed on November 3, 2008 by Justice Dougald R. McDermid of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

Endorsement

1The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment and a three-year driving prohibition. The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in principle in the sentence he imposed. He submits the trial judge (i) gave insufficient weight and consideration to the fact that the appellant’s prior conviction for the same offence dated back to 1993, and (ii) imposed a custodial sentence in the upper reformatory range which was excessive. The appellant further submits there was nothing so aggravating about the facts to warrant the imposition of the maximum driving prohibition on top of the custodial sentence.

2The appellant asks that leave to appeal be granted, the appeal be allowed, and the custodial portion of the sentence be reduced to time served. Further, the appellant asks that the length of the driving prohibition be reduced.

3We would not give effect to the appellant’s submissions. The trial judge was alive to the gap principle but found it of limited application having regard to the appellant’s provincial driving record. He gave more weight to the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence. He was entitled to do so.

4With respect to the length of sentence, the appellant concedes that his prior record warranted a reformatory sentence but submits that a sentence in the four to nine month range would have been appropriate. Having regard to the offender’s record and the nature of the offence, we see no basis on which to interfere with this sentence.

5Finally, in regard to the three-year driving prohibition, nothing in the record indicates that the trial judge exercised his discretion inappropriately. In 1993 the appellant received a two-year driving prohibition in conjunction with his sentence. Given the serious and ongoing disregard the appellant showed for the general rules of the road and the safety of the public, the three-year driving prohibition was not inappropriate.

6Accordingly, while leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal as to sentence is dismissed.