R. v. M., C.C.
The trial judge properly considered the parity principle and statutory provisions and was justified in imposing a custodial sentence because the seriousness of the offences created the exceptional circumstances under s.39; therefore the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C43755
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Applicant/appellant: Chad Chand M. (A Young Person)
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 January 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; sentence affirmed
- Legal Topics
- Parity Principle, Custodial Sentence, Sentencing Discretion, Youth Criminal Justice Act S.39
- 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
Chad Chand M. (A Young Person)
Applicant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the parity principle required a non-custodial sentence
- 2 Whether s.39 exceptional circumstances justified custody for a young person
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred in sentencing discretion
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge properly considered the parity principle and statutory provisions and was justified in imposing a custodial sentence because the seriousness of the offences created the exceptional circumstances under s.39; therefore the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; sentence affirmed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Original sentence upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. M., C.C. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-01-13 Docket numbers C43755 Judges Doherty, David H.; Sharpe, Robert J.; Juriansz, Russell G. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060112 DOCKET: C43755 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. CHAD CHAND M. (A Young Person) (Applicant/Appellant) BEFORE: DOHERTY, SHARPE and JURIANSZ JJ.A. COUNSEL: Lorne Sabsay for the appellant A. Rubaszek for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: January 10, 2006 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice D. Hackett of the Ontario Court of Justice dated June 17, 2005. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge properly considered the parity principle and the relevant statutory provisions. She was justified in imposing a custodial sentence despite the non-custodial sentence imposed on the other individual. The trial judge fully explored the various factors relevant to the two offenders. The trial judge’s determination that the seriousness of the offences placed the offender within the exceptional circumstances referred to in s. 39 was justified on these facts . [2] The reasons for sentence not only reveal no error, they offer a compelling argument for the disposition imposed. [3] The appeal is dismissed.