Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. G.L., 2008 ONCA 631

DATE: 20080916

DOCKET: C46984

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Winkler C.J.O., MacFarland and Epstein JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

And

Genavieve L. (a young person)

Appellant

Counsel:

J.C. Fleming for the appellant

Lisa Joyal for the respondent

Heard and released orally: September 4, 2008

On appeal from the conviction entered on October 30, 2006, and the sentence imposed on December 18, 2006, by Justice Jon-Jo Douglas of the Ontario Court of Justice.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant was convicted of assault and aggravated assault. These were serious crimes. The victim’s injuries – injuries that included broken bones of the eye socket and bruising and bleeding around the brain were significant.

[2] Given the appellant’s age at the time of the offences, the Youth Criminal Justice Act governed the sentencing. The focus of the appellant’s submissions was on whether the trial judge properly considered the various sentencing options provided for in the Act.

[3] The Act requires that alternatives to custody be given first consideration. However s. 39 does permit a custodial sentence where the young person has committed a violent offence. Since that is precisely what happened here, the question is whether the sentencing judge considered the three custodial gradations: deferred custody, open custody and closed custody.

[4] The trial judge’s reasons as a whole indicate that he was alive to the sentencing considerations mandated by the Act and relevant authorities. I refer particularly to the central paragraph on p. 33 of his reasons for sentence where the sentencing judge says that “the only sentence proportionate to the seriousness of the offence is one of real custody”, a point he repeats four times in relation to the various considerations he was required to make. This wording can only mean that the sentencing judge considered all the various custodial options. [Emphasis added.]

[5] In coming to the conclusion he did, the sentencing judge made no error in principle. Furthermore, in our view, the sentence was fit in all of the circumstances.

[6] The application to file fresh evidence – an application not opposed by the Crown – is granted. Leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is dismissed.

“W.Winkler C.J.O.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”

“G. Epstein J.A.”