R. v. Gregson, 2017 ONCA 88

Case Summary

The appellant appealed his sentence of 12 years imprisonment following his guilty plea to counselling to commit murder and criminal harassment of his estranged wife. The appellant also challenged a non-communication order imposed under s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code that prevented him from communicating with his minor son while incarcerated. The Court of Appeal upheld both the sentence and the non-communication order, finding the 12-year sentence was within the appropriate range given the aggravating circumstances and that the trial judge was entitled to impose the communication restriction for safety protection reasons.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-02-01 Docket: C61461

Judges: Feldman, Rouleau and van Rensburg JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Craig Stephen Gregson Appellant

Counsel

Lisa Gunn, for the appellant

John Patton, for the respondent

Heard

January 13, 2017

Appeal Information

On appeal from the sentence imposed on November 27, 2015 by Justice James A. Ramsay of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

Endorsement

[1] The appellant seeks leave to appeal the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to counselling to commit murder and criminal harassment of his wife, from whom he was separated. He received a sentence of 12 years minus credit for presentence custody as well as a non-communication order under s. 743.21 of the Code in respect of his wife and minor son.

[2] The first ground of appeal is that the sentence of 12 years exceeded the range for the offences. The appellant concedes that the significant aggravating factors in this case put his sentence at the top of the range, but he says that is 8.5 years. We see no error in the 12-year sentence imposed. Case law provided by the Crown shows sentences as high as 16 years for this type of offence. Given the horrendous circumstances of this case, including paying two hit men to kill his wife and continuing to harass her after his arrest, the sentence of 12 years was not outside the range.

[3] The second ground relates to the non-communication order as it applies to the appellant's son. The trial judge was aware that the parties had negotiated a custody agreement for the boy which involved access to the paternal grandparents and which included communication with the appellant while in jail. The trial judge was nevertheless of the view that for safety protection reasons, it was appropriate to make the non-communication order which applies while the appellant is incarcerated.

[4] In our view the trial judge was entitled to make the order he did under s. 743.21 of the Code and deference ought to be accorded to his view of the circumstances.

[5] While leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is dismissed.

"K. Feldman J.A."

"Paul Rouleau J.A."

"K. van Rensburg J.A."