Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2022-04-11 Docket: C69454
Judges: van Rensburg, Nordheimer and Sossin JJ.A.
Between: Her Majesty the Queen, Respondent And: Christian Masci, Appellant
Counsel: Craig Zeeh, for the appellant Avene Derwa, for the respondent
Heard: April 8, 2022
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Mary Teresa E. Devlin of the Ontario Court of Justice on January 29, 2021.
Reasons for Decision
[1] Mr. Masci seeks leave to appeal the sentence imposed on him following his convictions for pointing a firearm; possessing a firearm; and attempting to obstruct justice, along with other related offences. At the conclusion of the hearing, we granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal for reasons to follow. We now provide our reasons.
[2] The offences arise out of three separate events. The obstruction of justice offence arose out of the appellant’s attempt to propose himself as a surety for another individual, who he did not know, and for ulterior purposes. The pointing of a firearm offences arose out of a subsequent altercation between the appellant and this other individual which resulted in the appellant chasing after him while pointing a shotgun. The firearm possession offences occurred 12 days later, when the police arrested the appellant while he was walking on a residential street in Toronto. He was found to have a loaded pump-action shotgun in his pant leg.
[3] The sentencing judge determined that the “appropriate total sentence” for these three events was five years. She then apportioned that sentence as follows:
- three and a half years on the pointing of a firearm and related offences;
- one year consecutive on the firearm possession and related offences; and
- six months’ consecutive on the attempted obstruction of justice offence.
[4] The appellant submits that the sentencing judge erred in making the sentence on the firearm possession offences consecutive as opposed to concurrent. We do not agree. In the circumstances of this case, the events underlying the firearm possession offences were separate and apart from the events underlying the pointing of a firearm offences. A consecutive sentence was therefore appropriate. In any event, the decision of a judge imposing sentences as to whether they should be concurrent or consecutive is entitled to deference: R. v. McDonnell, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948, at para. 46.
[5] Finally, even if we had been satisfied that the sentence on the firearm possession offences ought to have been concurrent, it would raise the issue of whether the sentence on the pointing of a firearm offences would need to be adjusted upwards since the sentencing judge had first determined that a total sentence of five years was appropriate. The appellant does not submit that a total sentence of five years was demonstrably unfit or otherwise the product of error.
[6] For these reasons, while we granted leave to appeal, we dismissed the appeal.
“K. van Rensburg J.A.”
“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”
“Sossin J.A.”