COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Nguyen, 2007 ONCA 66

DATE: 20070131

DOCKET: C44702

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – LOAN THI NGUYEN (Appellant)

BEFORE: LASKIN and SHARPE JJ.A. and PARDU J. (ad hoc)

COUNSEL: Kim Schofield for the appellant Jason Wakely for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED: January 29, 2007

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Michel Z. Charbonneau of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, on December 13, 2005.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant contends that the trial judge erred in principle because he failed to explain why a conditional sentence could not serve the goals of specific and general deterrence. We disagree.

[2] The trial judge pointed to the appellant’s meagre income at the time of sentencing and thus her temptation to engage in similar activity in the future. He also pointed to the “substantial number of these marijuana grow house operations” in the rural community of Prescott and Russell where he served as the administrative judge.

[3] These considerations support the trial judge’s conclusion that a jail term was required for a specific and general deterrence.

[4] Moreover, even if the trial judge had committed an error in principle, entitling us to review the sentence, we are of the view that the sentence he imposed was entirely fit. It allows the appellant to maintain her employment; and it is of relatively short duration, reflecting that she is a first offender and had a modest role in the grow operation.

[5] There are no factors that would make this one of the rare cases where a conditional sentence would be appropriate for this kind of offence.

[6] Accordingly, although leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is dismissed.