Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-10-23 Docket: COA-24-CR-0897

Panel: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Rouleau J.A. and Maranger J. (ad hoc)

Between

His Majesty the King Respondent

and

Chad Laroche Appellant

Counsel

Patricia Brown, for the appellant Adrianna Mills, for the respondent

Heard and rendered orally: October 21, 2025

On Appeal

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Marnie Vickerd of the Ontario Court of Justice on December 21, 2023, and from the sentence imposed on September 18, 2024.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is an appeal from conviction for sexual assault and sentence. The appeal from conviction rests on two grounds.

[2] First, the appellant argues that the trial judge failed to address frailties in the complainant's evidence, including what are referred to as material inconsistencies. In our view, and respectfully, the appellant's position really comes down to a request that this court undertake a fresh credibility assessment. That is not the function of this court. In our view, the trial judge addressed the matters of concern and resolved them. That was the trial judge's job, not ours. We see no error in her approach.

[3] Second, the appellant challenges the trial judge's treatment of defence delay in the context of her s. 11(b) ruling.

[4] The total delay here was almost 20 months. The original trial dates were scheduled for well under the ceiling. Before the start of the trial, the defence realized that the defence was double booked on the second day scheduled for this two-day trial. Therefore, the second day was rescheduled to accommodate the defence, resulting in around four and a half months of delay.

[5] Then, on the originally booked first day of trial, the matter could not proceed given that the court was overbooked. While the Crown was available on earlier dates provided by the court, the defence was not. Accordingly, what was supposed to be the second day of trial became the first day of trial and the second and final day was scheduled for October 13, 2023.

[6] The appellant contends that the trial judge erred by attributing the entire period of time between the originally booked trial dates and the end of trial to defence delay. We do not read the trial judge's reasons in the same way. In our view, she properly apportioned the time. As the trial judge said:

[T]herefore, I conclude that the delay between May 11th, 2023, and the actual end [of trial] on October 13, [2023] can be attributed, in part, to defence delay, which brings this matter under the presumptive ceiling. [Emphasis added.]

[7] The trial judge's reasons demonstrate she only saw "part" of the five-month delay resulting from the rescheduling of dates as attributable to the defence. If only two of the five months were defence delay, this would have brought this matter under the Jordan ceiling. We see no error in the trial judge's approach.

[8] As for the sentence appeal, the appellant received two years in custody. The trial judge is said to have erred by failing to consider factors that push toward a conditional sentence order. We disagree. The trial judge covered all aggravating and mitigating factors. This was a serious sexual assault of a 13-year-old child. There is nothing unfit about the sentence imposed. Deference is owed.

[9] The conviction appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence is granted. The sentence appeal is dismissed.

Signatures

"Fairburn A.C.J.O."

"Paul Rouleau J.A."

"Maranger J. (ad hoc)"

Publication Ban

[1] This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.