Ontario Court of Appeal upheld convictions for sexual offences and dismissed most sentence concerns, reducing the global sentence by four months on two counts.
The appeal is dismissed: the trial judge's instruction on prior identification statements was consistent with R. v. Tat because identifications made after the incident can form part of the probative 'entire identification process', no prejudice was shown to require exclusion or corrective instruction, the trial judge properly used lack of remorse as evidence of lack of insight and potential future dangerousness rather than as an aggravating factor, and the life sentence was fit and proportionate.
Conviction is upheld because there was no material before the court showing the amendment was improper; the one year custodial sentence is maintained notwithstanding the trial judge's error regarding lack of remorse because the offence involved planned fraud, abuse of trust and a vulnerable victim; the six month period to pay the fine in lieu of forfeiture was insufficient and is extended to two years; the victim fine surcharge is set aside.
The trial judge erred in treating lack of remorse as an aggravating factor, but that error was harmless because the one-year custodial sentence was within the appropriate range given the appellant's calculated breach of trust, the vulnerability and severe financial harm to victims, and the need for denunciation and deterrence; the appeal against sentence is dismissed.