R. v. Darteh
- Citation
- 2025 ONCA 749
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 4 November 2025
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 4 November 2025
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The trial judge did not err: he accepted the appellant's hardship evidence, awarded 3:1 credit for presentence custody, and reasonably concluded that a 9-year global sentence was fit given offence seriousness and the appellant's responsibility; appeal dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed and 9-year global sentence upheld
- Publication ban maintained pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code
02
Material facts
Parties
His Majesty the King
Respondent Counsel: Étienne LacombeOhene Darteh
Appellant Counsel: Self; Jeff Marshman (duty counsel)Amounts and remedies
- Presentence Custody Credit Ratio: 3
- Global Sentence Length (years): years 9
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge erred in crediting presentence custody given hardship
- 02
Whether the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's request for a time served sentence
- 03
Whether the 9-year global sentence was fit
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant submitted the trial judge failed to give adequate credit for presentence custody despite the hardship endured and sought a time served sentence.
- Respondent
- Crown submitted the trial judge properly assessed and provided 3:1 credit for hardship in presentence custody, rejected a time served sentence as unfit given offence seriousness and offender responsibility, and any misapprehension did not amount to reversible error.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Appellate practice and sentencing law
Trial judge's sentencing findings are entitled to appellate deference; reversal requires demonstrable error.
- 02
Sentencing principles and case law
Presentence custody may attract increased credit where conditions or hardship justify it.
- 03
Sentencing law and appellate standards
An appellate court will not substitute its own view of a fit sentence absent error in principle or unreasonableness.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The trial judge did not err: he accepted the appellant's hardship evidence, awarded 3:1 credit for presentence custody, and reasonably concluded that a 9-year global sentence was fit given offence seriousness and the appellant's responsibility; appeal dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The appeal is subject to a publication ban under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code.
- The trial judge may have misapprehended the appellant's primary submission for time served, but that potential misapprehension did not constitute reversible error.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed and 9-year global sentence upheld
- Publication ban maintained pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 4 November 2025
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 4 November 2025
R. v. Darteh Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-11-04 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 749 Docket numbers COA-25-CR-0303 Judges Miller, Bradley; Paciocco, David M.; Favreau, Lise G. Subject Criminal Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Darteh, 2025 ONCA 749[1] DATE: 20251104 DOCKET: COA-25-CR-0303 Miller, Paciocco and Favreau JJ.A.
BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Ohene Darteh Appellant Ohene Dareh, appearing in person Jeff Marshman, appearing as duty counsel Étienne Lacombe, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: November 3, 2025 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Irving W. Andre of the Superior Court of Justice, on August 28, 2024.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr. Darteh, who received 3:1 credit for his presentence custody, appeals the 9-year global sentence that was imposed on the ground that the trial judge did not give him adequate credit for his presentence custody, given the hardship of serving this time. [2] Although the trial judge accepted Mr. Darteh’s account of the hardship he endured and gave him 3:1 credit, duty counsel submits that the trial judge may have misapprehended Mr. Darteh’s primary submission for a time served sentence. [3] We find no error that would permit us to interfere. [4] The trial judge, whose decision is entitled to deference, provided Mr. Darteh with significant credit for the hardship he had endured in presentence custody. He rejected the time served sentence because he found a 9-year global sentence to be fit given the seriousness of the offences and Mr. Darteh’s degree of responsibility. [5] The appeal is dismissed. “B.W. Miller J.A.” “David M. Paciocco J.A.” “L. Favreau 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.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.