Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Blake, 2016 ONCA 508

Date: 2016-06-24

Docket: C61889

Before: Sharpe, Lauwers, and Miller JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Lanson Blake Appellant

Counsel: Dan Stein, for the appellant Katie Doherty, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: June 23, 2016

On appeal from the sentence imposed on December 18, 2015 by Justice M.R. Gibson of the Superior Court of Justice.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and two counts of failure to comply with a probation order. He seeks leave to appeal the sentence imposed of two years less a day minus 361 days of pretrial custody (241 days credited at a 1.5:1 ratio) and three months’ probation.

[2] At the guilty plea an agreed statement of facts was filed. The appellant and the complainant had formed an intimate relationship. According to the agreed statement of facts, after a night of drinking, the appellant forced intercourse upon the complainant while holding a pillow over her face to smother her. The complainant escaped, the police were called, and the complainant eventually told the police that she just wanted the appellant to go away and that she did not wish charges to be laid. She made it clear to the appellant that he frightened her and that she wanted him to leave her alone. Following that incident, over a five day period, the appellant continued to telephone and text the complainant. On two occasions he followed her.

[3] At the sentencing hearing the appellant’s counsel indicated that the appellant accepted the agreed statement of facts except for the allegation of sexual assault.

[4] The appellant, age 31 at the time of these offences, has a lengthy criminal record including five prior convictions for criminal harassment involving five different women and seven prior convictions for breach of court orders.

[5] The appellant submits that the sentence imposed violated the “jump” principle and that the sentence was manifestly unfit.

[6] We disagree.

[7] The sentence imposed for the appellant’s prior criminal harassment convictions had included sentences of 6, 4 and 7 months. While the two years less a day sentence was a significant increase from seven months, we agree with the Crown that the disturbing pattern revealed by the appellant’s record of harassment fully justified a significant term of incarceration and, in the circumstances of this case, a sentence of two years less a day did not violate the jump principle: see R. v. Ogbamichael, 2016 ONCA 65. In our view, the sentencing judge quite properly emphasized the appellant’s prior record for this offence. An additional aggravating circumstance was the fact that the offence was committed while the appellant was awaiting disposition on an assault involving another former female partner. As the trial judge put it in his reasons: “The conduct of [the appellant] has clearly demonstrated that he has still not gotten the message in terms of his criminal harassment of women that he has entered into relationships with.”

[8] While a sentence of two years less a day for this conduct would be excessive if the appellant were a first offender, it is not excessive given his lengthy prior record and the other aggravating factors.

[9] Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted but the sentence appeal is dismissed.

“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“B.W. Miller J.A.”