R. v. Snow

R. v. Snow Court Court of Appeal Date 2025-11-18 Citation 2025 NSCA 80 Docket CAC 529469 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Farrar, David P.S. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Beaton, Carole A. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Van den Eynden, Elizabeth (Honourable Justice) (CA) Document Type Decision Decision Content Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Citation: R. v. Snow, 2025 NSCA 80 Date: 20251118 Docket: CAC 529469 Registry: Halifax Between: James Snow Appellant v. His Majesty the King Respondent Judges: Farrar, Van den Eynden and Beaton, JJ.A Appeal Heard: November 18, 2025, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Facts: The appellant was sentenced for 18 historical sexual offences involving five victims. The offences were of a sexual nature and involved children. The appellant sought to appeal his sentence of 23 years, arguing errors in the sentencing process and the length of the sentence (paras 1, 4). Procedural History: • Provincial Court: The appellant was sentenced to 23 years for 18 historical sexual offences (para 1). Parties’ Submissions: • Appellant: Argued that the trial judge erred by refusing an adjournment of the sentencing hearing and improperly assessing the mitigating effect of his rehabilitation efforts. Additionally, the appellant contended that the 23-year sentence was unjust and excessively harsh (para 4). • Respondent: The Respondent asserted the sentencing judge made no errors and the sentence was not manifestly unfit. Legal Issues: • Did the trial judge err in refusing to grant an adjournment of the sentencing hearing? • Did the trial judge improperly assess the mitigating effect of the appellant's rehabilitation efforts? • Was the 23-year sentence unjust and excessively harsh? Disposition: • The appeal was dismissed. Reasons: Per Beaton J.A. (Farrar and Van den Eynden JJ.A. concurring): The court found no error in the trial judge's decision to refuse the adjournment request, as it was consistent with established principles. The trial judge's sentencing decision was thorough and aligned with legal standards, showing no errors in law or principle. The sentence, while lengthy, was not deemed crushing given the context and principles from relevant case law, including R. v. Friesen and R. v. Sheppard (paras 5-6). The motion for fresh evidence was also dismissed (para 7). This information sheet does not form part of the court’s judgment. Quotes must be from the judgment, not this cover sheet. The full court judgment consists of 8 paragraphs. Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Citation: R. v. Snow, 2025 NSCA 80 Date: 20251118 Docket: CAC 529469 Registry: Halifax Between: James Snow Appellant v. His Majesty the King Respondent Restriction on Publication: s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code Judges: Farrar, Van den Eynden and Beaton, JJ.A. Appeal Heard: November 18, 2025, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Written Release: November 20, 2025 Held: Appeal dismissed, per reasons for judgment of Beaton, J.A.; Farrar and Van den Eynden, JJ.A. concurring Counsel: David Mahoney, K.C., for the appellant Cory Roberts, for the respondent Order restricting publication — sexual offences 486.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (a) any of the following offences: (i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a). Mandatory order on application (2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall (a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. Victim under 18 — other offences (2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. Mandatory order on application (2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall (a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order. Child pornography (3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. Limitation (4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. Reasons for judgment: By the Court (Orally) Introduction [1] The appellant, James Snow, seeks leave to appeal and appeals from his sentence of 23 years. Judge Chris Manning of the Provincial Court sentenced Mr. Snow for 18 historical sexual offences involving five victims. Mr. Snow also seeks to introduce fresh evidence on appeal. [2] Having considered the written and oral arguments of the parties, we are unanimously of the view that we would grant leave to appeal. Further, we are unanimously of the view we would dismiss the appeal. [3] The Supreme Court of Canada has provided strongly worded direction to sentencing and appellate courts regarding sentences for sexual offences against children. This direction was set out in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, and more recently underscored in R. v. Sheppard, 2025 SCC 29. [4] Appellate Courts are required to show deference to sentencing decisions unless there has been an error in principle or a manifestly unjust sentence has been imposed: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at paras. 11, 41 and 44; R. v. Abdi, 2025 NSCA 39 at para. 60. Here, Mr. Snow asserts the judge made two errors in principle: first, in refusing to grant an adjournment of his sentencing hearing and second, in improperly assessing the mitigating effect of Mr. Snow’s efforts at rehabilitation. Finally, Mr. Snow also maintains the sentence of 23 years is unjust as it is crushing in length. [5] On the first issue, the judge’s discretionary decision to refuse Mr. Snow’s adjournment request properly applied the principles set out in R. v. Beals, 1993 NSCA 215, as discussed more recently in R. v. Angus, 2024 SKCA 80 (paras. 73-74). We are not persuaded the trial judge erred in his consideration or his conclusion, nor that a miscarriage of justice resulted. [6] On the second issue, the trial judge’s oral, unreported sentencing decision thoroughly canvassed the facts and the law, and weighed and applied the principles of sentencing. We see no errors of law nor errors in principle according to the record before us. Finally, while the sentence is undoubtedly lengthy, it does not result in a crushing sentence given the judge’s analysis and the principles discussed in Friesen and Sheppard. For context and clarity, a copy of the judge’s oral, unreported decision is appended to these reasons. Disposition [7] In light of these determinations, the motion for fresh evidence is dismissed. [8] In summary, we would grant leave to appeal, but dismiss the appeal. Beaton, J.A. Concurred in: Farrar, J.A. Van den Eynden J.A.