R. v. Holt
Because the trial judge materially misapprehended critical evidence about other employment—a misapprehension central to the finding of breach—the conviction could not stand; the appeal was allowed and, by agreement of the parties, the remaining conditional sentence was reinstated for the remaining 72 days under the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 ONCA 636
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Warren Holt
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 October 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; remaining conditional sentence reinstated for 72 days under same conditions
- Legal Topics
- Conditional Sentence Breach, Burden of Proof, Misapprehension of Evidence, Reinstatement 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
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Warren Holt
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge shifted the burden of proof to the appellant
- 2 Whether the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence concerning the appellant's other employment, undermining the finding of breach
Ratio Decidendi
Because the trial judge materially misapprehended critical evidence about other employment—a misapprehension central to the finding of breach—the conviction could not stand; the appeal was allowed and, by agreement of the parties, the remaining conditional sentence was reinstated for the remaining 72 days under the same conditions.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; remaining conditional sentence reinstated for 72 days under same conditions
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Conviction for breach set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Holt Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2008-10-02 Neutral citation 2008 ONCA 636 Docket numbers C48169 Judges Armstrong, Robert Patrick; Lang, Susan Elizabeth; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Holt, 2008 ONCA 636 DATE: 20080922 DOCKET: C48169 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Armstrong, Lang and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Warren Holt Appellant Mark Halfyard for the appellant Susan Magotiaux for the respondent Heard: September 12, 2008 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice M.J. Epstein of the Ontario Court of Justice dated October 24, 2007. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant was found in breach of his conditional sentences. There are two main grounds of appeal: (1) The trial judge shifted the burden of proof to the appellant and; (2) The trial judge misapprehended the evidence of the appellant and his supporting witness. It is only necessary to deal with the second ground. [2] In our view, the trial judge misapprehended the evidence concerning other employment undertaken by the appellant. In light of this misapprehension which was central to the trial judge’s reasoning, we would allow the appeal. Ordinarily, the result would be a new hearing. However, the counsel for the Crown and the appellant are in agreement that in these circumstances, the remaining conditional sentence should be reinstated under the same conditions and terms for the remaining 72 days of the sentence.