R. v. Lu
The Court refused to disturb the sentences because the sentencing judge did not err in principle, did not fail to consider relevant factors, and the sentences imposed were fit; leave to appeal was granted but the appeals from sentence were dismissed and any victim surcharge was set aside.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2020 ONCA 70
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Haishi Lu; Appellant: Kai Hua Lin
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 January 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal sentence granted; appeals from sentence dismissed; victim surcharge set aside; outstanding appeals from conviction dismissed as abandoned.
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Production of Marijuana, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Probation, Victim Surcharge, 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
Haishi Lu
Appellant
Kai Hua Lin
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider relevant factors
- 3 Whether the sentencing judge placed undue emphasis on aggravating or mitigating factors
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused to disturb the sentences because the sentencing judge did not err in principle, did not fail to consider relevant factors, and the sentences imposed were fit; leave to appeal was granted but the appeals from sentence were dismissed and any victim surcharge was set aside.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal sentence granted; appeals from sentence dismissed; victim surcharge set aside; outstanding appeals from conviction dismissed as abandoned.
Orders
- Leave to appeal sentence granted
- Appeals from sentence dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Lu Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2020-01-30 Neutral citation 2020 ONCA 70 Docket numbers C63233, C63841 Judges Watt, David; Tulloch, Michael H.; Trotter, Gary T. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Lu, 2020 ONCA 70 DATE: 20200130 DOCKET: C63233 & C63841 Watt, Tulloch and Trotter JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Haishi Lu and Kai Hua Lin Appellants Darren Sederoff and Robert Cutruzzola, for the appellants Kelvin Ramchand, for the respondents Heard and released orally: January 24, 2020 On appeal from the convictions entered on April 15, 2016 and the sentences imposed on January 12, 2017 (C63233) and July 6, 2017 (C63841) by Justice Cathy Mocha of the Ontario Court of Justice. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellants appeal the sentences imposed upon them for production and possession for the purpose of trafficking in marijuana. The sentences were imposed after a joint trial. Each received a custodial sentence. The appellant Lu was also ordered to comply with the terms of the probation order upon release from custody. [2] In this court, the appellants seek substitution of a suspended sentence, or in the alternative, a custodial sentence within the range of sentence that may be served intermittently. [3] In our view, these appeals fail. Mindful of our authority to intervene on appeals from sentence under R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, we are not persuaded that the sentencing judge erred in principle; failed to consider a relevant factor; or erroneously considered or placed undue emphasis on an aggravating or mitigating factor in determining the sentences she imposed. [4] In our view, the sentences imposed were and remain fit for these offenders and the offences they committed. [5] Leave to appeal sentence is granted, but the appeals from sentence are dismissed, save to the extent that any victim surcharge imposed by the sentencing judge is set aside. Any outstanding appeals from conviction are dismissed as abandoned. “David Watt J.A.” “M. Tulloch J.A.” “Gary Trotter J.A.”