DATE: 20060911

DOCKET: C44305

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. PATRICIA GAUKRODGER (Appellant)

BEFORE:

DOHERTY, LASKIN and BORINS JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

William Reid

for the appellant

Charmaine Wong

for the respondent

HEARD:

RELEASED ORALLY:

September 5, 2006

September 5, 2006

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Margaret F. Woolcott of the Ontario Court of Justice dated October 5, 2005.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant, a twenty-six year old school teacher, was convicted of the sexual exploitation of the fourteen year old victim, a former student. The appellant had become very close to the victim while his teacher and also had become very close to the victim’s family. She used this position to commit the offence for which she was convicted. The acts of exploitation included some seven acts of sexual intercourse over a period of about a month. The appellant received a sentence of 15 months plus two years probation.

[2] The appellant argues that as breach of trust is an element of the offence for which she was convicted, the trial judge erred in principle in treating the breach of trust as an aggravating factor on sentence.

[3] In the course of very careful reasons, the trial judge referred to several aggravating circumstances of the offence, including the following:

Firstly, the number of relationships involving trusts that the offender breached in committing the offence; the nature of the trusts that were breached;

[4] We see no error in the trial judge’s reasons. The facts which constitute essential elements of an offence do not thereby lose their relevance on sentencing. The facts which the Crown is required to prove to establish the offence do not somehow become “used up”. Those facts will always be part of the consideration on sentencing. The extent to which the facts that establish the essential elements of the offence can increase or decrease the sentence imposed will depend on the specifics of those facts considered in the context of the entire circumstances.

[5] We are not convinced that the quantum is so manifestly unreasonable as to warrant appellate intervention.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

“Doherty J.A.”

“J.I. Laskin J.A.”

“S. Borins J.A.”