R. v. Hardyal
The trial judge failed to properly consider the quantum of sentence and mitigating family circumstances; because the imposed two-year penitentiary sentence lacked adequate reasoning and was excessive, the appellate court reduced the sentence to time served.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C37212
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Shaneeza Hardyal
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 December 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; sentence reduced to time served.
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing, Conditional Sentence, Appellate Review, Mitigating Circumstances
- 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
Shaneeza Hardyal
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive
- 2 Whether a conditional sentence was appropriate
- 3 Whether the trial judge adequately considered quantum and mitigating circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge failed to properly consider the quantum of sentence and mitigating family circumstances; because the imposed two-year penitentiary sentence lacked adequate reasoning and was excessive, the appellate court reduced the sentence to time served.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; sentence reduced to time served.
Orders
- Appeal allowed and original sentence reduced to time served.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Hardyal Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2001-12-20 Docket numbers C37212 Judges McMurtry, Roy; Rosenberg, Marc; MacPherson, James C. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20011220 DOCKET:C37212 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. SHANEEZA HARDYAL (Appellant) BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., ROSENBERG AND MacPHERSON JJ.A. COUNSEL: David M. Tanovich for the appellant Jennifer Woollcombe for the respondent HEARD: December 19, 2001 On appeal from the conviction dated September 10, 2001 and the sentence imposed on September 13, 2001 by Justice Derek T. Hogg. ENDORSEMENT Released Orally: December 19, 2001 [1] The Crown concedes that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was at the very high end of the appropriate range for this type of offence and offender. In our view it was too high. [2] The trial judge, in very brief reasons, focused almost exclusively on whether to impose a conditional sentence. He decided that such a sentence was inappropriate and we see no reason to interfere with that conclusion. [3] However, the trial judge was then required to carefully consider the quantum of sentence to impose. There is virtually nothing in his reasons to indicate that he did this. He imposed a sentence above that suggested by the Crown without providing any explanation. Moreover, he did not consider, in other than the most cursory fashion, some of the difficult circumstances respecting the appellant and her family situation. Without some consideration of these factors, a sentence that started with the conclusion “As far as I am concerned you should go to the penitentiary for a period of two years” is simply too harsh. [4] The appeal is allowed and the sentence is reduced to time served. “R. Roy McMurtry C.J.O.” “M. Rosenberg J.A.” “J. C. MacPherson J.A.”