R. v. C.J.
The Court dismissed the appeal because the conviction for voyeurism was not unreasonable on the record and the trial judge imposed a fit sentence after considering mitigating factors and pandemic-related issues, so there was no basis for appellate interference.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2022 ONCA 252
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: C.J.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 24 March 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal — Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Voyeurism, Sentencing, Criminal Appeal, Publication Restriction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
C.J.
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal — Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for voyeurism was unreasonable
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was fit and liable to appellate interference
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal because the conviction for voyeurism was not unreasonable on the record and the trial judge imposed a fit sentence after considering mitigating factors and pandemic-related issues, so there was no basis for appellate interference.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
- An order restricting publication under ss.486.4 and 486.6 of the Criminal Code shall continue.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. C.J. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2022-03-24 Neutral citation 2022 ONCA 252 Docket numbers C69355 Judges Miller, Bradley; Trotter, Gary T.; Zarnett, Benjamin Subject Criminal Decision Content WARNING The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file: An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide: 486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (a) any of the following offences; (i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49). (b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a). (2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall (a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. (2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall (a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order. (3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5; 2012, c. 1, s. 29; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22,48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18. 486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. C.J., 2022 ONCA 252 DATE: 20220324 DOCKET: C69355 Miller, Trotter and Zarnett JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and C.J. Appellant C.J., acting in person Amy Ohler, appearing as duty counsel Philippe Cowle, for the respondent Heard and released orally: February 10, 2022 On appeal from the conviction entered on October 31, 2020 and the sentence imposed on February 10, 2021 by Justice Julie Bourgeois of the Ontario Court of Justice. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] We are going to dismiss your appeal. [2] The conviction appeal was restricted to the voyeurism charge. We are not persuaded that that conviction was unreasonable. [3] As to your sentence we thank you for your thoughtful presentation today. We recognize how difficult it has been for you to serve your sentence during these times, and we commend you on the effort you have made to access programs, recognizing how limited they are right now. However, the offences were serious. The trial judge took into account all factors that were in your favour. The sentence that she imposed was appropriate and we cannot interfere with it. [4] Accordingly, the appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. “B.W. Miller J.A.” “Gary Trotter J.A.” “B. Zarnett J.A.”