WARNING

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

An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1) , (2) , (2.1) , (2.2) , (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:

486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences;

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49).

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order.

(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15 ; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5 ; 2012, c. 1, s. 29 ; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22,48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18 .

486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1) , (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15 .

Court of Appeal for Ontario

DATE: 20220127 DOCKET: C65961

Gillese, Rouleau and Trotter JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

A.R. Appellant

Counsel: Neha Chugh, for the appellant Katie Doherty, for the respondent

Heard: January 26, 2022 by video conference

On appeal from the sentence imposed on December 1, 2017 by Justice Rommel G. Masse of the Ontario Court of Justice.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] Over the course of seven years, the appellant inflicted a campaign of terror on five of the appellant’s six children, involving repeated acts of physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. After trial, the appellant was convicted of 30 offences and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

[2] The appellant’s appeal from conviction was dismissed: see R v. A.R., 2022 ONCA 33. The appellant now appeals against sentence. The appellant submits that the sentence is excessive and that the sentencing judge incorrectly applied the totality principle.

[3] We accept neither submission. There is no basis for appellate interference with the sentence.

[4] Far from being manifestly unfit, the sentence is proportionate and fit given the moral blameworthiness of the appellant’s extremely serious criminal conduct. And, it falls within the range of sentences imposed in cases of extensive child abuse involving a sexual abuse component. See, for example: R. v. M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; R. v. C. (J.A.) (1995), 26 O.R. (3d) 462 (C.A.); R. v. L.K.W. (1999), 126 O.A.C. 39 (C.A.); and R. v. D.D., 2018 ONCA 134.

[5] Nor did the sentencing judge err in his application of the totality principle. The sentencing judge identified the predominant sentencing principles for these offences: denunciation, deterrence, and the protection of the public, including these specific children. He determined that an overall sentence of 20 years was fit and then imposed individual sentences adding up the total. He took care to ensure that the total sentence was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offences and the appellant’s conduct.

[6] There are different methods of applying the totality principle. The Supreme Court of Canada has expressly affirmed the validity of the approach used by the sentencing judge: see R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, 444 D.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 157.

[7] In terms of credit for pre-sentence custody, we accept the Crown submission that, reading the record as a whole, the credit given was justified.

DISPOSITION

[8] Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted but the appeal is dismissed.

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“Gary Trotter J.A.”