COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION:
R. v. Grujic, 2012 ONCA 146

DATE: 20120307

DOCKET: C50975

Goudge, MacPherson and Juriansz JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Robert Grujic

Appellant

Ariel Herscovitch and Sharon Jeethan, for the appellant

Matthew Asma, for the respondent

Heard: March 1, 2012

On appeal from the conviction entered on May 15, 2009 and
    the sentence imposed on July 6, 2009 by Justice Peter H. Howden of the Superior
    Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

APPEAL
    BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1]

The trial judge here undertook a careful analysis of the ways in
    which the offence he was trying was significantly similar to two other
    convenience store robberies. In our view he did not rely on factors that are so
    generic as to fail to point to signature features of the act.  Nor did he
    confuse this task with his second task of determining the appellants linkage
    to each robbery.  The conviction appeal is dismissed.

[2]

The appellant raises three arguments on sentence. First, the
    appellant submits that the trial judge erred in failing to consider the absence
    of earned remission time in his presentence credit calculation. We disagree.
    The trial judge was clearly alive to this factor, but chose not to enhance
    pretrial credit on account of it.  That was open to him.

[3]

Second, the trial judge is said to have wrongly used the
    appellants breaches of probation to conclude that the appellant was resistant
    to rehabilitation. In our view this inference was open to him and does not
    constitute error.

[4]

The third error alleged is in making consecutive the sentence for
    breach of probation.  In our view the trial judge did receive submissions from
    defence counsel on this issue and did not err by declining to agree with them.
    Moreover the consideration of prior breaches of probation is a relevant
    consideration for this aspect of overall sentence as well as for the aspect
    relating to the gravity of the robbery.  These aspects protect different
    societal interests.

[5]

The sentence appeal is dismissed.


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION:
R. v. Momprevil, 2012
    ONCA 209

DATE: 20120328

DOCKET: C52917 & C52918

Blair, Rouleau and Hoy JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Bernard Rodger Momprevil

Appellant

Anik Morrow, for the appellant

Lucas Price, for the respondent

Heard: March 27, 2012

On appeal from the sentence imposed on August 6, 2008 by Justice
    D. Wake of the Ontario Court of Justice and of the sentence imposed on August
    8, 2008 by Justice Hugh Fraser of the Ontario Court of Justice.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1]

Mr. Momprevil was convicted at two separate trials by two separate
    judges, but at about the same time, for (a) assault causing bodily harm and
    criminal harassment and (b) possession of cocaine valued at about $133,000 for
    purposes of trafficking, possession of marijuana for purposes of trafficking
    and possession of the proceeds of crime.

[2]

Wake J. sentenced the appellant to 5 years imprisonment for the assault on
    August 6, 2008.  Fraser J. sentenced him to 8 years for possession of cocaine
    for the purposes of trafficking on August 8, 2008.  The sentences imposed by
    both judges for the other crimes were concurrent and for lesser periods.

[3]

Taken individually, we see no error in principle in either of the
    sentences imposed, given the very serious nature of the crimes in question and
    the appellants criminal record.  In our view, however, Fraser J. failed to
    consider or gave inadequate consideration to the totality principle in imposing
    the second sentence resulting in Mr. Momprevil receiving a global sentence of
    13 years.  Having regard to this consideration, we would reduce the global
    sentence to 10 years.

[4]

Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal from the sentence imposed by
    Fraser J. is allowed by varying the sentence on the possession for the purposes
    of trafficking in cocaine conviction to one of 5 years consecutive to the
    sentences imposed by Wake J.


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION:
R. v. Nolin, 2012 ONCA 183

DATE: 20120321

DOCKET: C53768

Rosenberg, Armstrong and Juriansz JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant

and

Justin Albert Nolin

Respondent

James K. Stewart, for the appellant

Steven Dallal, for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: March 20, 2012

On appeal from sentence imposed on April 29, 2011 by
    Justice Melvyn Green of the Ontario Court of Justice.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1]

The sentence imposed was extremely lenient given the nature of the
    offences and the respondents record for violence. That said, we have not been
    persuaded that the sentence is manifestly inadequate. The trial judge had the
    benefit of a compelling
Gladue
report and was entitled to give
    considerable weight to the restorative justice principles.

[2]

Accordingly, while leave to appeal sentence is granted, the
    appeal is dismissed.