R. v. Loiselle
Although the sentencing judge erred by not expressly acknowledging the 436 days spent on house arrest, that omission was harmless because the judge correctly identified the 18 to 24 month sentencing range and imposed a sentence at the lowest end; therefore no change to sentence was required.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2024 ONCA 268
- Parties
- Respondent: His Majesty the King; Appellant: Michael Loiselle
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence; Leave to Appeal Granted; Sentence Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal sentence allowed; sentence appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Appeal, Conditional Sentence, House Arrest, Pre Sentence Restraint Credit, Appellate Review
- 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
Michael Loiselle
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence; Leave to Appeal Granted; Sentence Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to acknowledge 436 days on house arrest
- 2 Whether that omission affected the availability of a conditional sentence
- 3 Whether appellate intervention was warranted given the imposed sentence
Ratio Decidendi
Although the sentencing judge erred by not expressly acknowledging the 436 days spent on house arrest, that omission was harmless because the judge correctly identified the 18 to 24 month sentencing range and imposed a sentence at the lowest end; therefore no change to sentence was required.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal sentence allowed; sentence appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Leave to appeal allowed
- Sentence of 18 months imprisonment affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Loiselle Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2024-04-12 Neutral citation 2024 ONCA 268 Docket numbers COA-24-CR-0039 Judges Benotto, Mary Lou; Coroza, Steve A.; Dawe, Jonathan Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Loiselle, 2024 ONCA 268 DATE: 20240412 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0039 Benotto, Coroza and Dawe JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Michael Loiselle Appellant Michael Loiselle, acting in person Myles Anevich, appearing as duty counsel Vallerry Bayly, for the respondent Heard: April 8, 2024 On appeal from the sentence imposed on December 14, 2023 by Justice Michael B. Carnegie of the Ontario Court of Justice. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr. Loiselle pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud which took place over a two year period. He was sentenced to 18 months incarceration. He seeks leave to appeal his sentence. [2] He alleges that the sentencing judge erred by misunderstanding the effect of the 436 days he spent on house arrest. The sentencing judge characterized the restrictions as not creating a “meaningful restriction” on his liberty. This comment was in connection with the request for a conditional sentence. [3] While the sentencing judge should have acknowledged and addressed the house arrest, his failure to do so could not have impacted the sentence. The sentencing judge correctly identified a 18 to 24 month period of incarceration as the appropriate range of sentence. He then imposed a sentence at the lowest end of the range. [4] We see no basis for appellate intervention. [5] Leave to appeal sentence is allowed, but the sentence appeal is dismissed. “M.L. Benotto J.A.” “S. Coroza J.A.” “J. Dawe J.A.”