R. v. Trist
The Court concluded the trial judge did not err in principle in weighing the appellant's rehabilitative efforts against his lengthy record and that differences between the two offenders and offences justified the different sentences; therefore no appellate intervention was warranted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2012 ONCA 166
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: George Trist
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 March 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence Imposed September 28, 2011
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; sentence upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Rehabilitation, Parity/disparity, Appeal
- 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
George Trist
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence Imposed September 28, 2011
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the weight afforded to the appellant's rehabilitative efforts
- 2 Whether disparity with another sentence required appellate intervention
- 3 Whether the sentencing judge properly balanced rehabilitative efforts against the appellant's lengthy record
Ratio Decidendi
The Court concluded the trial judge did not err in principle in weighing the appellant's rehabilitative efforts against his lengthy record and that differences between the two offenders and offences justified the different sentences; therefore no appellate intervention was warranted.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; sentence upheld.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Trist Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2012-03-16 Neutral citation 2012 ONCA 166 Docket numbers C54827 Judges Doherty, David H.; Lang, Susan Elizabeth; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Trist, 2012 ONCA 166 DATE: 20120315 DOCKET: C54827 Doherty, Lang and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and George Trist Appellant Lindsay l. Daviau, for the appellant Brendan Gluckman, for the respondent Heard: March 14, 2012 On appeal from the sentence imposed on September 28, 2011 by Justice Bishop of the Ontario Court of Justice, sitting without a jury. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge recognized the appellant’s rehabilitative efforts and treated them as mitigating. Counsel argues that he should have given those efforts more weight. It was up to the trial judge to consider those rehabilitative efforts alongside the other factors, including the appellant’s lengthy record. We see no error in principle in that assessment. [2] We cannot accept the argument based on the disparity with the sentence imposed by the same judge on another person convicted of similar offences arising out of the same police operation. There were differences between the two offences and the two offenders that justified the different sentences imposed. [3] Leave to appeal is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.