Court File and Parties
CITATION: R. v. Vincent, 2010 ONCA 332
DATE: 20100506
DOCKET: C50390
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Juriansz and Karakatsanis JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Besantroy Vincent
Appellant
Counsel: Timothy E. Breen and D. Lumba, for the appellant Susan Magotiaux, for the respondent
Heard: May 5, 2010 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Low of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 30, 2008.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] There are three arguments.
- Did the trial judge fail to give proper weight to the parity principle?
[2] The trial judge did consider the significantly lower sentences awarded two of the co-accused who had pled guilty to one charge. The trial judge drew distinctions between the appellant and the co-accused based on personal backgrounds, involvement in the relevant criminal activity and the pleas entered. Those distinctions were all valid. The significantly longer sentence awarded the appellant is not an unreasonable reflection of those valid distinctions. There is no error in principle.
- Did the trial judge treat the prior sentence imposed on the appellant as “floor” for the purposes of determining the sentence?
[3] We did not read the trial judge as proceeding on the basis that the prior sentence was a “floor”. She simply observed that the sentence she deemed appropriate for these offences was the same as the earlier sentence for offences of “similar gravity”. This was an observation rather than a reason for the sentence imposed.
- Did the trial judge fail to give adequate consideration to the appellant’s rehabilitative potential?
[4] We agree with the trial judge that the circumstances of these offences and the appellant’s background made general deterrence and specific deterrence the “major factors” in shaping an appropriate sentence. The trial judge referred to the appellant’s employment at the time of sentencing as “neutral”. We take her to mean it could not serve to mitigate the sentence given the importance of general and specific deterrence. We agree with that assessment.
[5] Hopefully, the appellant will continue his efforts to turn his life around.
[6] The appeal is dismissed.