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. Subsections 486(3) and 486(5) of the Criminal Code provide:
486.(3) Subject to subsection (4), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that the identity of a complainant or a witness and any information that could disclose the identity of the complainant or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way, when an accused is charged with
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 346 or 347,
(ii) 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
(iii) 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; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i), (ii) and (iii).
(5) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection (3) or (4.1) 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; 1999, c. 25, s. 2; 2001, c. 32, s. 29; 2001, c. 41, s. 16, 34 and 133(13), (14); 2002, c. 13, s. 20.
DATE: 20040615
DOCKET: C41210
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) – and – R.L. (Respondent)
BEFORE:
CATZMAN, WEILER and MacPHERSON JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Feroza Bhabha
for the appellant
Frank Addario
for the respondent
HEARD AND ENDORSED:
June 14, 2004
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Barry M. Matheson of the Superior Court of Justice on December 19, 2003.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The principal ground of appeal in this case was the imposition of a concurrent rather than a consecutive sentence on the second set of offences, which took place two months after the first. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in R. v. McDonnell (1997), 1997 389 (SCC), 114 C.C.C. (3d) 436, the sentencing judge has a considerable discretion to determine whether such sentences should be concurrent or consecutive and an appellate court will almost always defer to the sentencing judge’s exercise of that discretion.
[2] Accordingly, although we grant leave to appeal, we dismiss the Crown’s appeal against sentence.