COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20000727

DOCKET: C33779

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) v. TINA MARIE
FUDGE (Respondent)

BEFORE: DOHERTY, ABELLA and MOLDAVER JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Graham Zoppi
for the appellant

Diane Oleskiw
for the respondent

HEARD: July 14, 2000

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Eberhard J. dated February
2, 2000.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] This was a crime of violence committed by a person with a
record for crimes of violence. As of the date this offence was
committed, there can be no doubt that the respondent posed a
significant danger to the community and to herself. Her prior
conduct, her addictions and her mental state made her a real risk
to the safety of the community.

[2] In the two years between the commission of the offence and
the imposition of sentence, the respondent turned her life
around. She is in a positive relationship with her husband, has
developed a strong support network in the community and has
remained drug and alcohol free. She has continued her progress
since this sentence was imposed some six months ago.

[3] There was impressive evidence before the trial judge to the
effect that a conditional sentence offered the best, if not the
only hope for the rehabilitation of the respondent and
consequently the long-term protection of the community.

[4] The trial judge gave careful reasons for sentence in which
she reviewed the relevant authorities. She knew that there was a
risk that the respondent would re-offend if she slipped back into
her previous lifestyle. The trial judge concluded that the risk
could be adequately minimized by the appropriate terms of a
conditional sentence. She crafted a conditional sentence which
was directed very much to the specific situation and concerns
raised by this particular offender. The terms imposed by the
trial judge also contain a significant punitive component.

[5] Other trial judges may have imposed a custodial sentence,
but in the circumstances, we cannot say that this trial judge
erred in the sentence she imposed. We would not interfere.
Hopefully, the rehabilitation of the respondent will continue and
we will all be the better for it.

[6] Leave to appeal is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.

“Doherty J.A.”
“R.S. Abella J.A.”
“M.J. Moldaver J.A.”