Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-05-09
Docket: COA-24-CR-0239

Coram: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Copeland and Pomerance JJ.A.

Between

His Majesty the King
Respondent

and

Brendan Bananish
Appellant

Brendan Bananish, acting in person
Kevin Rawluk, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: May 7, 2025

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Andrew Pinto of the Superior Court of Justice on February 26, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 1218.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is a sentence appeal from a 7-year and 3-month global sentence which, after credit, resulted in a 24-month term of imprisonment. The appellant was also designated a long-term offender and the trial judge imposed an 8-year long-term supervision order. The predicate offence involves a violent and serious attack on an intimate partner, resulting in permanent and serious injuries. The appellant has a history of intimate partner violence. He raises numerous grounds of appeal.

[2] First, he claims that the expert was biased in that he relied on, among other things, a speculative motive for taking the victim to the location of the index offence. We have reviewed the record and cannot accept this characterization of the expert evidence.

[3] Second, the appellant disputes the factual underpinnings of one of his prior convictions. We note that the defence took no issue with the factual basis for any of the prior convictions at the hearing.

[4] Third, the appellant says that the sentencing judge unfairly crafted a sentence to facilitate a penitentiary term. The reasons for sentence do not support this position.

[5] Fourth, the appellant maintains that the sentencing judge unfairly ignored a lower score relating to his risk of re-offending and emphasized the higher score. Again, the reasons do not support this position. The sentencing judge carefully reviewed all of the evidence and arrived at findings of fact that were available to him on the record.

[6] Finally, the appellant argues that he was precluded from addressing the legal test for imposing a long-term offender designation. Specifically, he says he was precluded from making submissions on whether the test requires a finding of substantial risk of violent re-offending: see R. v. Snowden, 2023 ONCA 768, para 117. We need not address this legal issue as the sentencing judge arrived at a factual conclusion, available to him on the evidence, that the appellant is at substantial risk for violent re-offending.

[7] Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.

“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”
“J. Copeland J.A.”
“R. Pomerance J.A.”