R. v. Henry

R. v. Henry Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-01-28 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 79 Docket numbers C52408 Judges Doherty, David H.; Laskin, John Ivan; Gillese, Eileen E. Subject Criminal Decision Content WARNING An order restricting publication in this proceeding was made under s. 517 of the Criminal Code and continues to be in effect. This section of the Criminal Code provides: 517. (1) If the prosecutor or the accused intends to show cause under section 515, he or she shall so state to the justice and the justice may, and shall on application by the accused, before or at any time during the course of the proceedings under that section, make an order directing that the evidence taken, the information given or the representations made and the reasons, if any, given or to be given by the justice shall not be published in any document, or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as ( a) if a preliminary inquiry is held, the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is discharged; or ( b) if the accused in respect of whom the proceedings are held is tried or ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended. Failure to comply (2) Every one who fails without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, to comply with an order made under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (3) [Repealed, 2005, c. 32, s. 17] R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 517; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 101(E); 2005, c. 32, s. 17. CITATION: R. v. Henry, 2011 ONCA 79 DATE: 20110127 DOCKET: C52408 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Doherty, Laskin and Gillese JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Appellant and Clayton Yohan Henry Respondent Andreea Baiasu, for the appellant Paul Calarco, for the respondent Heard: January 26, 2011 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Robert J.C. Moore of the Ontario Court of Justice dated June 16, 2010. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge considered all of the relevant principles and clearly appreciated the seriousness of the offence. He also had to consider the “Gladue” Report, the respondent’s personal circumstances and the respondent’s substantial progress in the two years between the offence and the sentencing. Alcohol was the cause of the respondent’s conduct. He has addressed that problem prior to sentencing. [2] We see no basis upon which to interfere with the trial judge’s disposition. The respondent’s post-sentence progress over the last seven months tends to confirm the wisdom of the sentence imposed. He continues to abstain from alcohol and further his personal rehabilitation. [3] Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed.