R. v. Kuhni

R. v. Kuhni Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-07-17 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 532 Docket numbers COA-25-CR-0744 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal; Trotter, Gary T.; Harvison Young, Alison Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Kuhni, 2025 ONCA 532 DATE: 20250717 DOCKET: COA-25-CR-0744 Fairburn A.C.J.O., Trotter and Harvison Young JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Taylor Kuhni Appellant Taylor Kuhni, acting in person Ian Kasper, appearing as duty counsel Nicholas Hay, for the respondent Heard: July 14, 2025 On appeal from the sentence imposed on February 21, 2023 by Justice Jeanine E. LeRoy of the Ontario Court of Justice. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant entered pleas of guilty to the following offences: dangerous operation of a conveyance (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 320.13(1)), robbery (s. 344(1)), fail to comply with a recognizance (s. 145(5)(a)), take motor vehicle without consent (s. 335(1)), and theft over $5,000 (s. 334(a)). [2] The sentencing judge acceded to a joint submission and imposed a total sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, in addition to other ancillary orders, including a lifetime driving prohibition. [3] Over a year after the sentence was imposed, the appellant sought an extension of time to appeal her driving prohibition. The proposed ground of appeal was that the lifetime prohibition was “unreasonable”. The Crown consented to the extension, pointing out that the sentencing judge erred by imposing a lifetime prohibition when the maximum length of the prohibition available in the circumstances was only 10 years. [4] Paciocco J.A. allowed the extension of time on June 19, 2025. He said: Taylor Kuhni is seeking an extension of time to appeal the lifetime driving prohibition that was imposed when [she] was sentenced for driving offences on February 21, 2023. [She] explains the delay in filing [her] appeal on [her] misunderstanding that it was not possible to appeal a driving prohibition without appealing the entire sentence. The Crown has reviewed this matter and determined that an important legal issue arises relating to the prohibition and it is consenting to the extension. It is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. The inmate Notice of Appeal received by this court on February 1, 2025, is to be accepted for filing. This matter is to be listed to be heard in the inmate appeal sittings in July 2025 so that the narrow issue that is raised can be addressed. [Emphasis added.] [5] The appeal was listed for hearing for July 14, 2025. The Crown previously indicated its consent to have the lifetime prohibition set aside and a 10-year prohibition substituted. [6] With the assistance of duty counsel, however, the appellant sought an adjournment. She claims that her trial counsel never mentioned anything about a driving prohibition – of any length. Duty counsel sought an adjournment so that the appellant could consider whether to advance a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Crown opposed the adjournment request. [7] We dismissed the request for an adjournment with reasons to follow. Based on all of the circumstances, it is not in the interests of justice to permit the appellant to consider whether she wishes to widen the scope of her sentence appeal on a ground that, to us, seems doomed to fail. [8] On the merits of the appeal, we accept the Crown’s concession that the sentencing judge had no jurisdiction to impose a lifetime driving prohibition. Dangerous operation of a conveyance is punishable by a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment: Criminal Code, s. 320.19(5). In the circumstances, the maximum length of a driving prohibition is 10 years, not life: s. 320.24(5)(b). [9] The appellant submits that we should impose a prohibition below the maximum provided for in s. 320.24(5)(b). We disagree. In our view, given the egregious circumstances of the offence, which exposed the victim and other citizens to extreme danger of serious bodily injury, the maximum prohibition is entirely appropriate. [10] We grant leave to appeal sentence, allow the appeal in part by setting aside the lifetime driving prohibition imposed by the sentencing judge, and substitute a 10 year prohibition pursuant to s. 320.24(5)(b) of the Criminal Code. All other aspects of the sentence remain the same. [11] We extend our gratitude to Crown counsel for identifying the error and bringing it to the court’s attention. “Fairburn A.C.J.O.” “Gary Trotter J.A.” “A. Harvison Young J.A.”