R. v. Stewart (D.G.)

• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Judge: Beveridge, Bourgeois and Van den Eynden, JJ.A.
• Citation: 2016 NSCA 12,(2016), 370 N.S.R.(2d) 231 (CA)
• Date: 24 February 2016

R. v. Stewart (D.G.) (2016), 370 N.S.R.(2d) 231 (CA);

    1165 A.P.R. 231

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.051

Dennis Garry Stewart (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CAC 419615; 2016 NSCA 12)

Indexed As: R. v. Stewart (D.G.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Beveridge, Bourgeois and Van den Eynden, JJ.A.

February 24, 2016.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to a number of summary conviction and indictable offences involving predatory sexual activity against six males under the age of 16. The offences included: (1) inviting sexual touching (indictable); (2) inviting sexual touching (summary conviction); (3) two counts of touching for a sexual purpose (summary conviction); (4) touching for a sexual purpose (indictable); (5) two counts of breaching undertakings (indictable); (6) internet luring (indictable); and (7) trafficking in a controlled drug or substance (clonazepam).

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court, in a judgment reported (2013), 332 N.S.R.(2d) 336; 1052 A.P.R. 336, sentenced the accused as follows: six months' imprisonment for inviting sexual touching (summary conviction); three months' imprisonment (consecutive) for each touching for sexual purpose (summary conviction); six months' imprisonment (consecutive) for touching for a sexual purpose (indictable); six months' imprisonment (consecutive) for breach of an undertaking (indictable); three years' imprisonment (consecutive) for internet luring (indictable); two years' imprisonment (concurrent) for inviting sexual touching (indictable); one year's imprisonment (consecutive) for breach of undertaking (indictable); and two years' imprisonment (concurrent) for trafficking in clonazepam (indictable). The global sentence was six years' imprisonment, less one year's credit for one year of the 19 months' of pre-trial custody, leaving a go-forward sentence of five years' imprisonment. The accused appealed against sentence respecting the failure to give credit for the entire 19 month period he spent in custody pending sentencing.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The trial judge erred in failing to give at least one-to-one credit for the full 19 months (580 days) spent in custody pending sentencing.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Time already served (incl. bail) - The 71 year old accused pleaded guilty to offences involving predatory sexual activity with six males under the age of 16 - He groomed them for sexual activity with promises of alcohol, tobacco and drugs - There were six sex-related sentences, one drug offence, and two breach of undertakings offences - The latter two offences gave rise to two of the six sex-related offences and were committed while he was on bail, which was revoked - Not only was the accused sentenced for the two sex-related offences, he received a total consecutive sentence of 1.5 years' imprisonment for the breach of undertakings - Further, the trial judge limited credit for pre-sentencing custody to 12 of the 19 months spent on remand - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in denying the accused at least 1.0 to 1.0 credit for the full 19 months of pre-sentencing custody - The court stated that "The only way an offender could possibly be seen as obtaining a 'benefit' from [pre-sentencing custody] is if he were granted more than one-to-one credit for his time on remand. ... the circumstances are very limited that would permit less than one-to-one credit for [pre-sentencing custody]. ... those circumstances include if the offender were, at the same time, serving a sentence for another offence - in other words, if the time spent in custody was in relation to another offence; ... where the offender has already been credited for time spent in [pre-sentence custody]; ... or the time spent in [pre-sentence custody] is inconsequential. Otherwise, fairness demands nothing less than one-to-one credit" - See paragraphs 17 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hickey (D.P.) (2011), 303 N.S.R.(2d) 173; 957 A.P.R. 173; 2011 NSSC 186, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. LeBlanc (J.A.) (2011), 305 N.S.R.(2d) 188; 966 A.P.R. 188; 2011 NSCA 60, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Tallman et al. (1989), 94 A.R. 251; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. McDonald (C.) (1998), 111 O.A.C. 25; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Rezaie (M.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 268; 112 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Mills (D.J.) (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 284; 194 W.A.C. 284; 1999 BCCA 159, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Orr (C.) (2008), 251 B.C.A.C. 303; 420 W.A.C. 303; 2008 BCCA 76, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Wust (L.W.) et al. (2000), 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236; 2000 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Arthurs (K.N.) (2000), 252 N.R. 325; 134 B.C.A.C. 274; 219 W.A.C. 274; 2000 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Arrance (C.R.) (2000), 252 N.R. 319; 134 B.C.A.C. 268; 219 W.A.C. 268; 2000 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. A.N. (2009), 279 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 887 A.P.R. 201; 2009 NSSC 186, affd. (2011), 300 N.S.R.(2d) 282; 950 A.P.R. 282; 2011 NSCA 60, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. LeBlanc (J.A.) (2010), 294 N.S.R.(2d) 197; 933 A.P.R. 197; 2010 NSSC 347, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. R.C.C. (1993), 141 A.R. 161; 46 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Neudorf (T.J.) (2004), 200 B.C.A.C. 274; 327 W.A.C. 274; 2004 BCCA 374, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Calder Berg (S.L.) (2007), 243 B.C.A.C. 179; 401 W.A.C. 179; 2007 BCCA 343, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Carvery (L.A.) (2012), 321 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 1018 A.P.R. 321; 2012 NSCA 107, affd. (2014), 456 N.R. 35; 343 N.S.R.(2d) 393; 1084 A.P.R. 393; 2014 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Dolfi (D.B.) (2009), 269 B.C.A.C. 31; 453 W.A.C. 31; 2009 BCCA 152, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Aubin (J.M.) (2009), 276 B.C.A.C. 251; 468 W.A.C. 251; 2009 BCCA 418, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Rufus (J.P.) (2009), 276 B.C.A.C. 264; 468 W.A.C. 264; 2009 BCCA 419, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Vedres (L.K.) (2012), 322 B.C.A.C. 126; 549 W.A.C. 126; 2012 BCCA 232, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Lacasse (T.) (2015), 478 N.R. 319; 2015 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Cole (J.J.C.), et al. (2015), 355 N.S.R.(2d) 304; 1123 A.P.R. 304; 2015 NSCA 14, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Murphy - see R. v. Cole (J.J.C.) et al.

R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali (H.) (2014), 325 O.A.C. 17; 2014 ONCA 627, leave to appeal granted [2014] S.C.C.A. No. 489, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Monje (F.) (2011), 273 O.A.C. 392; 2011 ONCA 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Keepness (S.C.) (2014), 446 Sask.R. 125; 621 W.A.C. 125; 2014 SKCA 110, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Wilson (R.) (2008), 240 O.A.C. 59; 2008 ONCA 510, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Jean (E.J.) (2008), 265 B.C.A.C. 80; 446 W.A.C. 80; 2008 BCCA 465, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Jacque (H.) (2012), 320 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 325; 993 A.P.R. 325; 2012 NLCA 18, refd to. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 719(3) [para. 17]; sect. 719(3.1), sect. 719(3.2), sect. 719(3.3), sect. 719(3.4) [para. 24].

Counsel:

Dennis Garry Stewart, appellant, in person;

James Gumpert, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 20, 2016, at Halifax, N.S., before Beveridge, Bourgeois and Van den Eynden, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On February 24, 2016, Beveridge, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.