WARNING
The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:
An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486(1), (2), or (3) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:
- (1) Any proceedings against an accused shall be held in open court, but the presiding judge or justice may order the exclusion of all or any members of the public from the court room for all or part of the proceedings if the judge or justice is of the opinion that such an order is in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice or is necessary to prevent injury to international relations or national defence or national security.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the “proper administration of justice” includes ensuring that.
(a) the interests of the witnesses under the age of eighteen years are safeguarded in all proceedings; and
(b) justice system participants who are involved in the proceedings are protected.
(3) If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 163.1, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 212, 271, 272 or 273 and the prosecutor or the accused applies for an order under subsection (1), the judge or justice shall, if no such order is made, state, reference to the circumstances of the case, the reason for not making an order. R.S., c. C-34, s. 442; 174-75-76, c. 93, s. 44; 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, s. 74, c. 125, s. 25; R.S.C. 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 14; c. 23 (4th Supp.), s. 1; 1992, c. 21, s. 9; 1993, c. 45, s. 7; 1997, c. 16, s. 6; 1999, c. 25, s. 2; 2001, c. 32, s. 29; 2001, c. 41, s. 16, 34 and 133(13), (14); 2002, c. 13, s. 20; 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, ss. 4 and 8(3)(a).
Court File and Parties
CITATION: R. v. Bull, 2010 ONCA 847
DATE: 20101210
DOCKET: C51647
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Feldman and Juriansz JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant
and
Kenneth Walter Bull
Respondent
Benita Wassenaar, for the appellant
Matthew Gourlay, for the respondent
Heard: December 1, 2010
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Stephen O’Neill of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 15, 2010
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is a difficult case because of its unusual history and circumstances. The sentencing judge canvassed all the relevant sentencing principles and discussed them thoroughly. He recognized these are extremely serious offences that have caused life altering consequences for the victims and that the respondent was in a position of trust when he committed them. The sentencing judge appreciated that the primary sentencing goals were denunciation and general deterrence and that the range of sentence for these types of offence is a penitentiary term in the mid to upper single digits. However, he then went on to identify the particular facts and circumstances that led him to impose a sentence of two years less a day to be served in a provincial reformatory, plus probation.
[2] Appellate courts are directed to show considerable deference in reviewing the decisions of sentencing judges. We do not see in the reasons of the sentencing judge, any error in principle, failure to consider a relevant factor or improper weighing of factors that would permit us to disturb the sentence he imposed.
[3] In the course of the appeal the court was advised that the respondent is facing charges that post date these offences. Those outstanding charges have played no role in the determination of a fit and just sentence for these offences.
“D. Doherty J.A.”
“K. Feldman J.A.”
“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”