R. v. Bastien
The Court held that brief reasons were sufficient because the sentencing judge adopted the Crown's submissions and emphasized public protection; because the appellant denied culpability and blamed victims he could not rely on remorse as mitigation; and fresh evidence of in‑custody progress is a matter for the parole...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 240
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Randy Bastien
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Conviction Appeal Abandoned; Leave to Appeal Sentence Granted; Appeal of Sentence Dismissed on Merits
- Outcome
- Conviction appeal dismissed as abandoned; leave to appeal sentence granted; appeal of sentence dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Adequacy of Sentencing Reasons, Remorse as Mitigating Factor, Public Protection in Sentencing, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Parole Board Jurisdiction
- 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
Randy Bastien
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Conviction Appeal Abandoned; Leave to Appeal Sentence Granted; Appeal of Sentence Dismissed on Merits
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentencing judge provided adequate reasons for sentence
- 2 Whether an offender who denies culpability can rely on remorse as a mitigating factor
- 3 Whether fresh evidence of in‑custody progress justifies disturbing the sentence
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that brief reasons were sufficient because the sentencing judge adopted the Crown's submissions and emphasized public protection; because the appellant denied culpability and blamed victims he could not rely on remorse as mitigation; and fresh evidence of in‑custody progress is a matter for the parole board, so the sentence should not be disturbed.
Court Disposition
Conviction appeal dismissed as abandoned; leave to appeal sentence granted; appeal of sentence dismissed.
Orders
- Conviction appeal dismissed as abandoned
- Leave to appeal sentence granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Bastien Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-03-29 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 240 Docket numbers C52080 Judges Gillese, Eileen E.; Lang, Susan Elizabeth; Watt, David Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Bastien, 2011 ONCA 240 DATE: 20110328 DOCKET: C52080 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Gillese, Lang and Watt JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Randy Bastien Appellant Daniel Medd, for the appellant Susan Magotiaux, for the respondent Heard: March 28, 2011 On appeal from the convictions entered and sentence imposed on March 2, 2010, by Justice William F. Fitzgerald of the Ontario Court of Justice. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Counsel for the appellant confirms that the conviction appeal has been abandoned. That appeal is dismissed as abandoned. [2] The appellant was convicted of break and enter and theft. He was on parole for a 3 year sentence for 6 counts of break and enter at the time of the offences in question. He had served a previous 3 year sentence for forcible confinement and weapons charges. He had more than 30 prior convictions, including 7 for break and enter. [3] The appellant was sentenced to 3 years for the offences in question. He has served just over a year of that sentence. He seeks leave to appeal sentence. [4] Counsel for the appellant acknowledges that the sentence is not outside the range. However, he submits that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate reasons and failed to consider, as a mitigating factor, the appellant’s expressions of remorse. [5] We do not accept either submission. While the reasons are extremely brief, it is clear that the sentencing judge adopted the Crown’s submissions. Those submissions, in addition to the sentencing judge’s explicit reference to the importance of public protection, mean that the sentence is sufficiently explained. [6] We accept the Crown’s submission that the appellant cannot rely on remorse as a mitigating factor when, even at sentencing, he was disputing factual findings and denying the break and enter. To this we would add that the appellant sought to place the blame on the victims for his commission of the offence, an act not consistent with genuine remorse. [7] As for the fresh evidence, the appellant’s progress while in custody is commendable but that is a matter for the parole board. [8] Accordingly, leave to appeal sentence is granted and the appeal is dismissed. “E. E. Gillese J.A.”