R. v. Chan
Assuming the trial judge erred in principle by failing to distinguish between custodial and conditional sentences, the Court was nevertheless satisfied the sentence was fit and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C42412
- Parties
- Appellant: Tyrone Chan; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 July 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Sentence (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Appeal, Custodial Vs Conditional Sentence, Fitness of Sentence
- 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
Tyrone Chan
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Sentence (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in principle by failing to distinguish the appropriate period of incarceration for custodial versus conditional sentences
- 2 Whether, notwithstanding any such error, the imposed sentence was fit
Ratio Decidendi
Assuming the trial judge erred in principle by failing to distinguish between custodial and conditional sentences, the Court was nevertheless satisfied the sentence was fit and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; sentence upheld
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Sentence imposed by Justice S. Chapnik dated August 26, 2004 is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Chan Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-07-08 Docket numbers C42412 Judges Doherty, David H.; Feldman, Kathryn N.; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20050708 DOCKET: C42412 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. TYRONE CHAN (Appellant) BEFORE: DOHERTY, FELDMAN and LAFORME JJ.A. COUNSEL: Leslie Maunder for the appellant Marco Mendicino for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: June 30, 2005 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice S. Chapnik of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 26, 2004. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Assuming that the trial judge erred in principle in failing to distinguish between the appropriate period of incarceration depending on whether the sentence was custodial or conditional, we are satisfied that the sentence was fit. [2] The appeal is dismissed.