- DATE: 20020624 DOCKET: C37505
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) - and - KEITH STEVEN FOX (Respondent)
BEFORE:
CARTHY, ABELLA AND MACPHERSON JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Nadia E. Thomas
for the appellant
Keith S. Fox in person
for the respondent
HEARD:
June 20, 2002
On appeal from the sentence imposed on December 5, 2001 by Justice C. Bruce Noble.
E N D O R S E M E N T
Released Orally: June 20, 2002
[1] The Crown appeals the sentence imposed by the trial judge. Unfortunately, the reasons for sentence delivered by the trial judge are unsatisfactory. The trial judge said: “I agree with the Crown that on initial review the charge of arson is the most serious charge, and ordinarily requires confinement”.
[2] He then continued for two paragraphs, saying that each case must be decided on its own merits. Without offering any reasons, he then abruptly said that a conditional sentence was appropriate. Moreover, he imposed virtually no conditions on the respondent’s liberty as a component of the sentence. Finally he ordered, again without reasons, restitution in the amount of $2500 without saying why he did not accept Mr. Charlebois’ estimate in the amount of $10,000-$15,000 of the loss caused by the fire.
[3] In our view, the sentence imposed by the trial judge was unfit for such a serious offence. However, we are of the view that in light of the respondent’s current employment situation (a good full time position in British Columbia that pays $6000-$8000 per month), no good purpose would be served by converting the conditional sentence to a custodial one at this juncture.
[4] Mr. Fox said in court today that he is very sorry for what he did on the night in question. He stated that he would like to pay Mr. Charlebois more than the $2500 he was ordered to pay by way of restitution. This is a worthy goal, especially since the trial judge gave no reasons for rejecting Mr. Charlebois’ estimate of the loss arising from the total destruction of his cottage and belongings. In our view, it provides an appropriate foundation on which to resolve this appeal.
[5] The appeal is allowed. The conditional sentence is increased to 20 months on the same terms as the current sentence. The respondent is to pay total restitution of $12,000 which should be paid by instalments of $1000 per month by the 15th day of each month commencing on July 15, 2002.
“J. J. Carthy J.A.’
“R. S. Abella J.A.”
“J. C .MacPherson J.A.”