WARNING

The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:

An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:

486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences;

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant's sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49).

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

486.4(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.4(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

486.4(2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order.

486.4(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

486.4(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5; 2012, c. 1, s. 29; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22, 48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18.

486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

486.6(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-07-16

Docket: C65302

Panel: Rouleau, Tulloch and Fairburn JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Darren Curtis Jordan Appellant

Counsel

Appellant: Darren Jordan, in-person; Mark Halfyard, duty counsel

Respondent: Jessica Smith Joy

Heard: July 11, 2019

On appeal from: The sentence imposed on April 6, 2018 by Justice Coroza of the Superior Court of Justice without a jury.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] The appellant received a six year sentence for human trafficking, two years consecutive for procuring and one year consecutive for intimidation of a justice system participant. All other sentences for the related convictions ran concurrent. This is an appeal from the global sentence of nine years minus 1.5 years for pre-sentence custody.

[2] The appellant argues, with the helpful and very capable assistance of duty counsel, that the trial judge erred by failing to appreciate that the sentencing range moved from what was a two to seven year range at the time when the offences were committed to a range of four to eight years at the time of sentencing. It is argued that the lower end of the range shifted upwards because of the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence after the offences had been committed. In light of that change in the range, the appellant says that the trial judge erred by using the higher range as his starting point for consideration of a fit sentence. The appellant contends that had the trial judge used the earlier range, in place when the offences were committed, the total sentence would have been one year less.

[3] We do not agree.

[4] As reviewed by the trial judge in his lengthy and careful reasons for judgment and sentence, the facts were egregious. The offences continued over a long period of time, involved the complete domination and control of the victim, the appellant's moral blameworthiness was extremely high, physical violence was used and serious psychological impact resulted. In these circumstances, regardless of the range used by the trial judge as the starting point for determining a fit sentence, the ultimate disposition was a fit one.

[5] The trial judge noted that the appellant appeared to be doing well in the institutional setting at the time of sentencing. It would appear that he is continuing on this course of self-improvement. The court is encouraged by his efforts as they bode well for his rehabilitation and ultimate reintegration into society.

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