Court File and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20210512 DOCKET: C66808
Tulloch, Roberts and Trotter JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
and
Rajin Sunda Appellant
Counsel: Harpreet Saini, for the appellant Kelvin Ramchand, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: May 10, 2021 by video conference
On appeal from the conviction entered on October 23, 2018 by Justice Alan D. Cooper of the Ontario Court of Justice, and from the sentence imposed on March 14, 2019.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] On April 27, 2021, the appellant abandoned his appeal from his convictions for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession of cocaine. In the exceptional circumstances of this case, the appellant and the respondent jointly propose that the sentence appeal be allowed in part and that the remainder of the net twenty month sentence be stayed, and a one-year period of probation be substituted.
[2] The sentencing judge accepted that the appellant was an addict-trafficker. The pre-sentence report highlighted the appellant’s addiction to heroin since 2016, as well as the appellant’s very significant progress in dealing with his addiction issues. In addition to giving credit for pre-sentence custody, the sentencing judge noted and gave additional credit for the 3.5 months that the appellant had spent on restrictive release conditions without incident. The sentencing judge also ordered a probationary period of 12 months to enable the appellant to continue addiction counselling.
[3] The appellant filed an inmate appeal on April 10, 2019. He served 6.5 months of his custodial sentence before being released on October 1, 2019 and has since been on a house arrest interim judicial release without incident.
[4] Following a serious mental health episode, on December 25, 2020, the appellant was admitted to a 60-day in-treatment program. The appellant was diagnosed with anxiety and depression that was connected to substance abuse issues. The appellant received a certificate of completion of this program on February 23, 2021.
[5] We agree that it is in the interests of justice that the sentence appeal be allowed as proposed by the parties. While the sentence imposed was fit, re‑incarceration of the appellant in the particular circumstances of this case is not in the public interest and would be deleterious to his prospects for rehabilitation. The appellant has served a meaningful portion of his sentence and has not re‑offended or breached his bail conditions. He has continued to undergo treatment for his addiction issues. It is in the public interest that the appellant’s rehabilitative progress continues uninterrupted and that he reintegrates to society as a productive and law-abiding individual.
Disposition
[6] Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted, and the remaining custodial sentence is stayed. The existing probation order is vacated, and a new probation order is to be entered for a period of 12 months, with the compulsory conditions under s. 732.1(2) of the Criminal Code but no other optional conditions, except to continue drug addiction and related counselling or programming and to provide a consent to confirm compliance with same. All other ancillary orders as ordered by the sentencing judge remain in place.
“M. Tulloch J.A.”
“L.B. Roberts J.A.”