Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Langlois, 2007 ONCA 642 Date: 2007-09-19 Docket: C47393

Before: O’Connor A.C.J.O., MacPherson and Juriansz JJ.A.

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Michael Langlois Appellant

Counsel

Paul Calarco for the appellant Peter Scrutton for the respondent

Heard: September 7, 2007

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Keast of the Ontario Court of Justice on March 1, 2007.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to twelve offences that arose out of four discrete incidents, three of which occurred in the domestic context. The offences consisted of one count of assault causing bodily harm, four counts of break and enter, one count of forcible confinement, four counts of breach of recognizance, one count of disobeying a court order and one count of causing a disturbance.

[2] The domestic incidents culminated in an attack on the appellant’s girlfriend, whom he beat while she held her one and a half year old daughter. He was on interim release at the time of this attack awaiting trial on charges that stemmed from earlier acts of aggression toward her and was in breach of an order prohibiting him from communicating with her.

[3] The appellant was sentenced to ten months in custody in addition to the seven and a half months he was credited for pre-trial custody.

[4] The appellant appeals on three grounds: The trial judge did not take sufficient account of the appellant’s guilty plea, he under-emphasized rehabilitation as a factor for this youthful offender, and he erred by not giving the appellant 2:1 credit for all the time he spent in pre-trial custody.

[5] We do not accept these arguments. The trial judge specifically took into account the guilty plea and paid considerable attention to the goal of rehabilitating a young offender.

[6] With respect to pre-trial custody, we do not find it necessary to address the appellant’s arguments because we are satisfied that the overall sentence was fit.

[7] In our view, the fresh evidence submitted by the appellant does not change the overall picture.

[8] The appeal is dismissed.