DATE: 20051011
DOCKET: C42928
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – RICHARD TOULOUSE (Appellant)
BEFORE:
WEILER, BLAIR and MacFARLAND JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Daniel A. Stein
for the appellant
Amanda Rubaszek,
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
October 7, 2005
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Randall W. Lalande dated June 30, 2004.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] A trial judge is entitled to considerable latitude in crafting the appropriate sentence in an individual case, and to considerable deference in that regard.
[2] Here, there were other sentencing options open to the trial judge, but he decided – after weighing all of the relevant factors – not to impose a conditional sentence or to adopt the other suggestions put forward by the defence. He emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the prevailing considerations in the circumstances and concluded that a conditional sentence would not respond adequately to these factors. We cannot say he was wrong in doing so on the facts.
[3] Although the trial judge did not refer frequently to rehabilitation, he did do so in the context of his discussion about a conditional sentence, and we are satisfied that his reasons, read as a whole, show that he was alive to the concept and that he fully considered the positive aspects of Mr. Toulouse’s personal characteristics.
[4] Absent an error in principle, a failure to consider a relevant factor, an inappropriate emphasis on applicable factors, or unless the sentence is demonstrably unfit, an appellate court will not interfere. We can find no error on the part of the trial judge. Nor can we find that the sentence imposed was unfit.
[5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.