Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Smith, 2012 ONCA 761

DATE: 20121108

DOCKET: C55607

O’Connor A.C.J.O., MacPherson and Cronk JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Ryan Smith

Appellant

Counsel:

Jessica Sickinger, for the appellant

Vanita Goela, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: November 6, 2012

On appeal from the sentence imposed on March 7, 2012 by Justice John D.D. Evans of the Ontario Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant was convicted of possession of 168.5 pills oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking in Huntsville. He was sentenced to 18 months incarceration followed by two years probation on conditions and a 10 year prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

[2] The appellant contends that the sentence of 18 months incarceration was manifestly unfit. In particular, he asserts that the sentencing judge did not explore sufficiently the principle of restraint with respect to youthful first offenders: see R. v. Priest (1996), 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.).

[3] We do not accept this submission. The appellant was 29 years old at trial – other words, outside the normal criminal justice conception of a young offender. More importantly, the trial judge explicitly considered the imposition of a conditional sentence and rejected it, in part because of “the harm caused by this drug and the destruction and even tragedy it reaps upon the community.” Finally, the trial judge identified and was alive to the need to balance the principles of general deterrence and rehabilitation. He specifically took account of the latter principle in his reasons by recommending that “the accused be considered for admittance into the intensive substance abuse program at OCI in Brampton”.

[4] The appellant submits that the sentencing judge provided inadequate reasons to explain the sentence he imposed.

[5] We disagree. Although the reasons were brief, they were delivered soon after the submissions of counsel and were explicitly responsive to those submissions. And, as mentioned above, they considered and balanced the relevant factors in a sentencing context.

[6] In summary, in our view the sentencing judge imposed a fit sentence and did not err in principle. The appeal is dismissed.

“D. O’Connor A.C.J.O.”

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”