Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2022-05-25 Docket: C66565

Before: Simmons, Miller and Nordheimer JJ.A.

Between: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

And: Narmatha Satkunananthan Appellant

Counsel: Mark C. Halfyard, for the appellant Xenia Proestos, for the respondent

Heard: March 21, 2022 by video conference

Supplementary reasons to the judgment in R. v. Satkunananthan, 2022 ONCA 393, released on May 16, 2022.

Addendum

[1] In reasons released on May 16, 2022, we set aside the appellant’s conviction for possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking. The appellant was originally sentenced to a suspended sentence plus two-years’ probation for that offence. As the appellant had served her sentence and counsel had agreed this was not a case for a new trial, we requested written submission concerning what disposition and sentence should be imposed under ss. 686(1)(b)(i) and 686(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.

[2] Counsel have now made a joint submission requesting that we dismiss the appeal, substitute a verdict of guilty of possession of oxycodone (180 Percocet pills), and impose an absolute discharge effective as of the date of the original sentencing.

[3] We agree that the proposed disposition is in the interests of the appellant and not contrary to the public interest for the following reasons:

• the sentencing judge relied on several mitigating factors in imposing a suspended sentence plus probation rather than a term of incarceration for the more serious offence of which the appellant was originally convicted. Those mitigating factors included: the appellant’s relative youth; the fact that she had no prior criminal record and supportive family and friends; and the further fact, that prior to the date of the offence she had led a pro-social life;
• the appellant has now served her sentence for the more serious offence. In doing so she has stayed out of trouble, performed 100 hours of community service, completed university, and is running an aesthetics business.

[4] While an absolute discharge may not have been appropriate even for the offence of simple possession of oxycodone when the appellant was originally sentenced, we agree with counsel’s joint submission that, taking account of the fact that the appellant has served the sentence for the more serious offence and appears to have rehabilitated herself, that disposition is now appropriate.

[5] In all the circumstance, pursuant to ss. 686(1)(b)(i) and 686(3) of the Criminal Code, the appeal is dismissed, the appellant’s conviction for possession of oxycodone for the purposes of trafficking is set aside, a guilty verdict for possession of oxycodone is substituted, and the appellant is discharged absolutely effective February 20, 2019.

"Janet Simmons J.A."

"B.W. Miller J.A."

"I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A."