R. v. Tumber
The sentencing judge did not misapprehend the duration or magnitude of the fraud and was justified in rejecting a conditional sentence; accordingly the appellate court will not interfere and the sentence is upheld.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 849
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Jeremy Tumber
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 December 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Sentence Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal sentence granted; appeal dismissed; sentence upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Conditional Sentence, Serious Fraud, Appellate Deference to Sentencing
- 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
Jeremy Tumber
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge misapprehended the duration or magnitude of the fraud
- 2 Whether a conditional sentence was appropriate in light of the seriousness of the fraud
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge did not misapprehend the duration or magnitude of the fraud and was justified in rejecting a conditional sentence; accordingly the appellate court will not interfere and the sentence is upheld.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal sentence granted; appeal dismissed; sentence upheld.
Orders
- Leave to appeal sentence granted.
- Appeal dismissed and sentence imposed July 17, 2009 upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Tumber Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-12-02 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 849 Docket numbers C50897 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Sharpe, Robert J.; Cronk, Eleanore Ann Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Tumber, 2009 ONCA 849 DATE: 20091201 DOCKET: C50897 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Laskin, Sharpe and Cronk JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Jeremy Tumber Appellant Dean D. Paquette, for the appellant Dena Bonnet, for the respondent Heard: November 30, 2009 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Richard J. LeDressay of the Superior Court of Justice on July 17, 2009. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We decline to interfere with the sentence. In our view, on a fair reading of the record, the sentencing judge did not misapprehend either the duration or the magnitude of the fraud. This was a serious fraud, and the sentencing judge was justified in rejecting a conditional sentence. [2] Accordingly, although leave to appeal sentence is granted, the sentence appeal is dismissed.