Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Bannon, 2012 ONCA 557

DATE: 20120824

DOCKET: C53861

BEFORE: Feldman, Sharpe and Ducharme JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Glen Arthur Bannon

Appellant

COUNSEL:

Paul K. Burstein, for the appellant

Molly Flanagan, for the respondent

HEARD: August 22, 2012

On appeal from the sentence imposed on June 9, 2011 by Justice Edward E. Gareau of the Superior Court of Justice.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We agree with the trial judge that a conditional sentence could not satisfy the principles of sentencing in a case where the appellant, a Chief of Police, committed fraudulent actions in his office from which he benefited financially over a number of years. The trial judge took into account the Gladue report and the Gladue factors applicable to the appellant. He stated that he reduced the length of the sentence he would otherwise have imposed because of the Gladue factors and the appellant’s history growing up. This court was concerned about the medical problems faced by the appellant but we have been advised by counsel that there are two provincial institutions that can accommodate his need for dialysis in a sterile environment. The parity principle is not applicable in these circumstances as the appellant was a public official, while the car dealer was not, and consequently the appellant’s misconduct was more serious.

[2] Leave to appeal sentence is granted but the appeal is dismissed.