R. v. Muir
The sentencing judge committed no error in principle: he considered the relevant factors, the offences involved exploitation of a vulnerable young person to whom the appellant owed a duty of trust, no exceptional circumstances existed to permit a conditional sentence, and the sentence imposed fell within the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2025 ONCA 640
- Parties
- Respondent: His Majesty the King; Appellant: Jessy Muir
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 September 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Sentence Appeal (leave Granted); Conviction Appeal Proceeding Separately
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal sentence granted; sentence appeal dismissed; original sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Conditional Sentence, Sexual Interference, Breach of Probation, Presentence Custody Credit, Vulnerable Complainant, Publication Ban
- 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
His Majesty the King
Respondent
Jessy Muir
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentence Appeal (leave Granted); Conviction Appeal Proceeding Separately
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to impose a conditional sentence
- 2 Whether there were exceptional circumstances permitting a conditional sentence
- 3 Whether the sentencing judge properly considered aggravating and mitigating factors
Ratio Decidendi
The sentencing judge committed no error in principle: he considered the relevant factors, the offences involved exploitation of a vulnerable young person to whom the appellant owed a duty of trust, no exceptional circumstances existed to permit a conditional sentence, and the sentence imposed fell within the applicable range, so the sentence appeal must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal sentence granted; sentence appeal dismissed; original sentence upheld
Orders
- Leave to appeal sentence granted.
- Sentence appeal dismissed; original sentence of 30 months custody less 7 months credit, followed by 18 months probation, upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Muir Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-09-17 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 640 Docket numbers COA-25-CR-0114 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Monahan, Patrick J.; Pomerance, Renee M. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Muir, 2025 ONCA 640 [1] DATE: 20250917 DOCKET: COA-25-CR-0114 Simmons, Monahan and Pomerance JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Jessy Muir Appellant Jessy Muir, appearing in person Lynda Morgan, as duty counsel Étienne Lacombe, for the respondent Heard: September 9, 2025 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Elaine A. Ann Burton of the Ontario Court of Justice, on January 8, 2025, and from the sentence imposed on January 8, 2025. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant was convicted of sexual interference and breach of probation. He was sentenced to 30 months in custody less 7 months credit for presentence custody and onerous bail conditions, to be followed by 18 months’ probation. At the hearing he sought leave to appeal sentence on the basis that the trial judge erred in failing to impose a conditional sentence. His conviction appeal is proceeding separately as a solicitor appeal. [2] The appellant has failed to demonstrate any error in principle on the part of the sentencing judge. For purposes of the sentence appeal, we must presume the convictions to be valid. The appellant exploited his relationship with a vulnerable young person, to whom he owed a duty of trust, for his own sexual gratification. There were no exceptional circumstances that would permit imposition of a conditional sentence: R. v. M.M. 2022 ONCA 441 at para.16. The sentencing judge expressly considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, including the appellant’s business activities. The sentence fell within the applicable range and we see no basis for appellate intervention. [3] Accordingly leave to appeal sentence is granted, but the sentence appeal is dismissed. “Janet Simmons J.A.” “P.J. Monahan J.A.” “R. Pomerance J.A.” [1] This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.