CITATION: R. v. Thomas, 2007 ONCA 848

DATE: 20071206

DOCKET: C45186 & C46295

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

LASKIN, MOLDAVER and ROULEAU JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

and

DANIEL DOUGLAS THOMAS

Appellant

Daniel Douglas Thomas in person

Phil Downes amicus curiae

Riun Shandler for the respondent

Heard and released orally: November 21, 2007

On appeal from the conviction entered April 8, 2005 and sentence imposed on March 17, 2006 by Justice Richard G. Byers of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant, Mr. Thomas, appeals some of his convictions and his sentence. The amicus, Mr. Downes, submitted that in his view there were no arguable grounds to support a conviction appeal. We agree. The conviction appeal is therefore dismissed.

[2] The trial judge imposed an effective determinate sentence of fifteen years and three months (including time spent in pre-trial custody) to be followed by a ten year supervision order. That latter order was made on consent and is not in issue on the sentence appeal.

[3] In his able submission, Mr. Downes contended that the trial judge erred in principle by failing to consider in a meaningful way the circumstances of the offender, especially his age and his dementia. He argued that the trial judge’s overriding concern, which was to separate Mr. Thomas from his family so that he would not seek them out again, did not take into account Mr. Thomas’ mental condition. The amicus pointed to the opinion of Dr. Melodick that Mr. Thomas would unlikely be able to carry out a plan to track his family down. And he pointed to the opinion of Dr. O’Brien that Mr. Thomas’ progressive dementia meant that his future risk would decline over time.

[4] We do not agree with the amicus’ submission. We do think that in sentencing Mr. Thomas the trial judge took into account Mr. Thomas’ mental health. As the Crown pointed out, the medical experts generally agreed that at the time of sentencing Mr. Thomas posed a moderate to high risk to re-offend. And perhaps more important, the evidence of Dr. Lepage-Parenteau suggested that we simply do not know how Mr. Thomas’ dementia will affect his future risk. According to her evidence, with the treatment he is now receiving, Mr. Thomas’ dementia may stabilize instead of progress.

[5] However, even if we were to accede to the amicus’ submission that the trial judge erred in principle by focusing only on the offences themselves and by failing to take into account the circumstances of the offender, we nevertheless consider the sentence he imposed to be fit.

[6] The trial judge described Mr. Thomas’ forty-year rein of terror over his family in these terms: “Short of murder, this is the worst case of domestic abuse over the longest time period, that I have ever seen.” This description seems apt. The sentence for Mr. Thomas’ abuse is fit.

[7] The sentence appeal is therefore dismissed.

“John Laskin J.A.”

“M. Moldaver J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”