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complainant or of a witness and any information that could disclose the identity of the complainant or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way.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. R.S., c. C-34, s. 442; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 44; 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, s. 74, c. 125, s. 25; R.S.C. 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 14; c. 23 (4th Supp.), s. 1; 1992, c. 21, s. 9; 1993, c. 45, s. 7; 1997, c. 16, s. 6. DATE: 20030916
DOCKET: C39471
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Applicant/Appellant) v. REIGH KILBRIDE (Respondent)
BEFORE:
DOHERTY, WEILER and SHARPE JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Leslie Paine
for the appellant
Reigh Kilbride
appearing in person
HEARD & ENDORSED:
September 15, 2003
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Rutherford on January 10, 2003.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
[2] The serious nature of this offence was such that a period of substantial incarceration would have been warranted even given the passage of time (20 years) and the respondent’s positive lifestyle during that time.
[3] However, given that the respondent has successfully completed 9 months of the conditional sentence, we are not prepared to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial judge.
[4] We encourage the respondent to complete the rest of his sentence in a spirit of co-operation which the trial judge no doubt anticipated.
[5] The appeal is dismissed.