W A R N I N G
An order restricting publication in this proceeding was made under s. 517 of the Criminal Code and continues to be in effect. This section of the Criminal Code provides:
- (1) If the prosecutor or the accused intends to show cause under section 515, he or she shall so state to the justice and the justice may, and shall on application by the accused, before or at any time during the course of the proceedings under that section, make an order directing that the evidence taken, the information given or the representations made and the reasons, if any, given or to be given by the justice shall not be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as
( a) if a preliminary inquiry is held, the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is discharged; or
( b) if the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is tried or ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended.
Failure to comply
(2) Every one who fails without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, to comply with an order made under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 17]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 517; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101(E); 2005, c. 32, s. 17.
Court File and Parties
CITATION: R. v. Scott, 2011 ONCA 365
DATE: 2011-05-06
DOCKET: C50583
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Goudge and Armstrong JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Peter Scott
Appellant
Counsel: Kristin Bailey, for the appellant Dena Bonnet, for the respondent
Heard: May 6, 2011
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Halikowski of the Ontario Court of Justice on March 3, 2009.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] This appeal arises out of the apparent misunderstanding over the view expressed by the pre-trial judge (later the trial judge) as to the appropriate sentence. The misunderstanding is reflected in the conflicting affidavits filed on appeal. We cannot resolve that conflict. We would remind the bar of this court’s comments in R. v. O’Quinn (2001), 2002 CanLII 44942 (ON CA), 59 O.R. (3d) 321 at para. 11. Placing the essence of the pre-trial plea discussions on the record as part of the guilty plea proceeding will avoid misunderstandings.
[2] The term of imprisonment, which is long served, was entirely appropriate. We see no error in the imposition of the probation term.
[3] The appeal is dismissed.