W A R N I N G

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

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding under s. 486(3) of the Criminal Code, concerning the identity of and any evidence that would tend to identify the complainant(s), shall continue. As relevant in this case, s. 486(3) and s. 486(5) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under s. 486(3), read:

486.(3) Subject to subsection (4), where an accused is charged with

(a) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 346 or 347,

(b) an offence under section 144, 145, 149, 156, 245 or 246 of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or

(c) an offence under section 146, 151, 153, 155, 157, 166 or 167 of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988,

the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that the identity of the complainant or of a witness and any information that could disclose the identity of the complainant or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way.

(5) Every one who fails to comply with an order made pursuant to subsection (3) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

DATE: 20030602

DOCKET: C39195

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and–

TADEUS DROZDZ (Appellant)

BEFORE:

LABROSSE, CHARRON and SHARPE JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Dana Garrick

for the appellant

Lucy Cecchetto

for the respondent

HEARD AND ENDORSED:

June 2, 2003

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Kerry P. Evans of the Ontario Court of Justice dated September 25, 2002.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant was convicted of three counts of sexual assault and three counts of indecent assault involving four different young boys. The facts relating to a fifth boy were also considered for the purpose of sentencing.

[2] The sexual assaults involved a serious breach of trust and were committed over a period of 12 years between 1980 and 1992.

[3] The appellant had previously been convicted of indecent assault on five different child victims, committed prior to 1979 for which he received conditional sentences in September 2001.

[4] The trial judge reviewed all the mitigating and aggravating factors. He considered the Victim Impact Statements. He also considered the applicable principles of sentencing in cases of sexual abuse of young children.

[5] It is conceded that the sentence of 7 years is within the appropriate range for similar cases.

[6] We see no basis to interfere. Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed.