Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Haddad, 2009 ONCA 474

DATE: 20090611

DOCKET: C48996

BEFORE: Moldaver, Goudge and Armstrong JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

And

Tafy Haddad

Appellant

COUNSEL:

John H. Hale for the appellant

Sarah Shaikh for the respondent

On appeal from sentence imposed by Justice R. N. Fournier of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, dated June 19, 2008.

Heard and endorsed: June 9, 2009

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment and 2 years probation for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The evidence on the sentence hearing established that the appellant was distributing drugs in the City of Ottawa purely for commercial gain. He kept his drug supply at home, where he lived with his elderly mother, whom he cared for, and where his autistic son visited on a regular basis. Upon detection, the appellant admitted the offence but claimed that he was assisting a woman who was living at the home in an effort to wean her off her drug habit. On searching the house, the police found 13.2 grams of cocaine.

[2] The trial judge refused to impose a conditional sentence, in part because he did not feel that it would provide the deterrent effect need to bring home to the appellant and others the gravity and seriousness of his crimes. In this regard, he noted that the appellant was a homebody who did not have a job or go to school and who essentially spent most of his waking hours at home.

[3] We see no error in the trial judge’s approach. He did not foreclose the conditional sentencing regime to persons who spend most of their time at home. Instead, as indicated, in the particular circumstances of this case, he felt that something more was required to satisfy the principles of general and specific deterrence. At the same time, the trial judge took into account the mitigating circumstances relating to the appellant’s care of his mother and the special needs of his son. The sentence that he arrived at was, in our view, balanced and measured and we see no basis for interfering with it.

[4] Nor do we accept that the time spent by the appellant [11 months] on bail pending appeal should be taken into account as a basis for reducing the 4 month custodial sentence. There is nothing before us, by way of fresh evidence, to show that during that timeframe, the appellant took steps towards his rehabilitation or for that matter, that he suffered any hardship, let alone the kind of undue hardship, by virtue of the terms of his release, that we might be prepared to consider in another case.

[5] Accordingly, while leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is dismissed.