Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Bastien, 2011 ONCA 240

Date: 20110328

Docket: C52080

Before: Gillese, Lang and Watt JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Randy Bastien

Appellant

Counsel:

Daniel Medd, for the appellant

Susan Magotiaux, for the respondent

Heard: March 28, 2011

On appeal from the convictions entered and sentence imposed on March 2, 2010, by Justice William F. Fitzgerald of the Ontario Court of Justice.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] Counsel for the appellant confirms that the conviction appeal has been abandoned. That appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

[2] The appellant was convicted of break and enter and theft. He was on parole for a 3 year sentence for 6 counts of break and enter at the time of the offences in question. He had served a previous 3 year sentence for forcible confinement and weapons charges. He had more than 30 prior convictions, including 7 for break and enter.

[3] The appellant was sentenced to 3 years for the offences in question. He has served just over a year of that sentence. He seeks leave to appeal sentence.

[4] Counsel for the appellant acknowledges that the sentence is not outside the range. However, he submits that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate reasons and failed to consider, as a mitigating factor, the appellant’s expressions of remorse.

[5] We do not accept either submission. While the reasons are extremely brief, it is clear that the sentencing judge adopted the Crown’s submissions. Those submissions, in addition to the sentencing judge’s explicit reference to the importance of public protection, mean that the sentence is sufficiently explained.

[6] We accept the Crown’s submission that the appellant cannot rely on remorse as a mitigating factor when, even at sentencing, he was disputing factual findings and denying the break and enter. To this we would add that the appellant sought to place the blame on the victims for his commission of the offence, an act not consistent with genuine remorse.

[7] As for the fresh evidence, the appellant’s progress while in custody is commendable but that is a matter for the parole board.

[8] Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

“E. E. Gillese J.A.”