R. v. Borsi
The Court held the sentencing judge did not err in principle because she correctly assessed that the appellant did not experience particularly harsh pretrial conditions; that discretionary finding is entitled to deference, so enhanced credit was not warranted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 989
- Parties
- Appellant: Ennio Borsi; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 18 December 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Pretrial Custody Credit, Enhanced Credit, Remand Conditions, Judicial Deference
- 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
Ennio Borsi
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred by refusing enhanced credit for 89 days in lockdown within 528 days of pretrial custody
- 2 Whether particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions warranted mitigation beyond the 1.5 credit in s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code
- 3 Degree of appellate deference to sentencing judge's discretionary findings
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held the sentencing judge did not err in principle because she correctly assessed that the appellant did not experience particularly harsh pretrial conditions; that discretionary finding is entitled to deference, so enhanced credit was not warranted.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Borsi Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-12-18 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 989 Docket numbers C67330 Judges MacPherson, James C.; Sharpe, Robert J.; Zarnett, Benjamin Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Borsi, 2019 ONCA 989 DATE: 20191213 DOCKET: C67330 MacPherson, Sharpe and Zarnett JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Ennio Borsi Appellant Nathan Gorham, for the appellant Andrew Hotke, for the respondent Heard: December 10, 2019 On appeal from the sentence imposed on June 19, 2019 by Justice Kathleen J. Caldwell of the Ontario Court of Justice. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant raises one ground of appeal, namely that the sentencing judge erred by refusing to give him enhanced credit 89 days in lockdown of the 528 days of pretrial custody. He relies on the principal established in R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 at para. 6 that “in appropriate circumstances, particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions can provide mitigation beyond the 1.5 credit referred to in s. 719(3.1) of the Code. The sentencing judge’s decision is discretionary and attracts substantial deference on appeal: R. v. U.A., 2019 ONCA 946. [2] We do not agree that the sentencing judge made any error in principle. She was correct in focusing her attention on the issue of whether there were “particularly harsh” conditions and their effect on the appellant. She felt that the appellant did not experience particularly harsh treatment as required by Duncan. That finding attracts deference on appeal. [3] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.