COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20010611 DOCKET: C35846

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. MARK DELL THOMAS (Appellant)

BEFORE: LASKIN, CHARRON and SIMMONS JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Ms. L. Maunder for the appellant

Ms. Miriam Bloomenfeld for the respondent

HEARD: May 30, 2001

Released Orally: May 30, 2001

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Hamilton on September 27, 2000.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day but the trial judge imposed a sentence of three years on top of three months pre-trial custody. Although it would have been preferable had the trial judge referred in his reasons to the Crown’s position, even giving that position serious consideration, we are not persuaded that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was unreasonable.

[2] This court’s decision in Bates emphasizes the need to denounce and deter criminal harassment in the strongest terms. Applying the principles in Bates to this case, in our view, the many aggravating circumstances outlined by the Crown justified a significant sentence. This appellant has a lengthy criminal record. He has been convicted of assaulting the victim twice before. He has shown no regard for court orders in the past and, indeed, was on three probation orders at the time he committed this offence. The victim’s fear of the appellant has led her to change both her job and her residence.

[3] In the light of these considerations the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not unfit though it was at the upper end of the range. The Crown concedes that the trial judge’s parole ineligibility order cannot stand because counsel were given no opportunity to address it and no reasons were given for why it was required.

[4] Leave to appeal sentence is granted and the parole ineligibility order is deleted. Otherwise the sentence appeal is dismissed.