R. v. Van Every
The appeal is allowed in part because it was not clear the sentencing judge awarded appropriate credit for 41 days of pre-sentence custody; the original sentence of two years less a day is otherwise not manifestly unfit, the judge considered mitigating factors, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, so...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2025 ONCA 32
- Parties
- Respondent: His Majesty the King; Appellant: Steven Wade Van Every
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 January 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence; Leave to Appeal Granted Limited to Pre‑sentence Custody Credit Issue
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced by 41 days
- Legal Topics
- Manifestly Unfit Sentence, Conditional Sentence, Pre Sentence Custody Credit, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias
- 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
Steven Wade Van Every
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence; Leave to Appeal Granted Limited to Pre‑sentence Custody Credit Issue
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the two years less a day sentence was manifestly unfit
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider mitigating factors
- 3 Whether the sentencing judge gave appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is allowed in part because it was not clear the sentencing judge awarded appropriate credit for 41 days of pre-sentence custody; the original sentence of two years less a day is otherwise not manifestly unfit, the judge considered mitigating factors, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, so the sentence is reduced by 41 days only.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced by 41 days
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted (limited to pre-sentence custody credit)
- Original sentence of two years less a day upheld except for reduction of 41 days
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Van Every Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-01-17 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 32 Docket numbers COA-23-CR-0017 Judges Nordheimer, Ian V.B.; Sossin, Lorne; Copeland, Jill M. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Van Every, 2025 ONCA 32 DATE: 20250117 DOCKET: COA-23-CR-0017 Nordheimer, Sossin and Copeland JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Steven Wade Van Every Appellant Ariel Herscovitch and Andrea J. Di Fazio, for the appellant Holly Loubert, for the respondent Heard and released orally: January 16, 2025 On appeal from the sentence imposed on December 7, 2022 by Justice Gethin B. Edward of the Ontario Court of Justice. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant seeks leave to appeal his sentence of two years less a day on convictions for break and enter and careless storage of firearms. He seeks the substitution of a conditional sentence. In our view, the appellant has failed to show that the sentence imposed was manifestly unfit nor has he shown that the sentencing judge failed to consider any mitigating factors: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089. The sentence was proportionate to the offences and was well within the discretion of the sentencing judge to impose, particularly in light of the circumstances underlying the convictions. In addition, we do not accept that the conduct of the sentencing judge exhibited any reasonable apprehension of bias. [2] Having said that, we are not satisfied that it is clear that the sentencing judge gave appropriate credit for the time that the appellant had spent in pre-sentence custody. We would therefore grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal but only to the extent of reducing the sentence by 41 days. “I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.” “L. Sossin J.A.” “J. Copeland J.A.”