COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: R. v. Cvetas, 2022 ONCA 499
DATE: 20220627
DOCKET: C70463
Huscroft, Nordheimer and Copeland JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Nick Cvetas
Appellant
Counsel:
Ahmad Karzai, for the appellant
Andrew Hotke, for the respondent
Heard: June 24, 2022
On appeal from the sentence imposed on March 16, 2022 by Justice Maureen D. Forestell of the Superior Court of Justice with reasons reported at 2022 ONSC 1640.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000, admitting that in 2015 and 2016 he took $317,000 from the bank account of his 81-year-old godmother, Ms. Cemas. He was sentenced to a term of 12 months’ imprisonment followed by 2 years of probation. The appellant seeks leave to appeal his sentence. At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. We now provide our reasons.
[2] The appellant argues that the sentencing judge erred in principle in finding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate. He emphasizes that he made restitution; that the probation officer recommended his suitability for community supervision, and that he expressed genuine remorse. In addition, he notes that he has lost his license to practice his profession.
[3] The sentencing judge’s decision is entitled to deference. This court can interfere only if there is an error of law or principle that impacted the sentence, or the sentence was demonstrably unfit.
[4] We see no basis that would warrant intervention.
[5] The sentencing judge found that the objectives of deterrence and denunciation could not be met by a conditional sentence. She made no error in doing so. She considered the aggravating and mitigating factors. It was for the sentencing judge to weigh those factors and exercise her discretion. She was not required to advert to every piece of evidence adduced.
[6] It is for these reasons that leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.
“Grant Huscroft J.A.”
“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”
“J. Copeland J.A.”