Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

 

 

 

 

CASE NO.                                          VOLUME NO.                                   PAGE NO.

 

CHOICE ATLANTIC SEAFOODS INC.,

c/o Robert Anderson, 72 Queen Street, Canso, N.S.

(Appellant)

 

- and -

 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN                               

(Respondent)

 

 

 

Justice Margaret J. Stewart Bridgewater, N.S.                  S.BW. 5260

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

[Cite as: R. v. Choice Atlantic Seafoods Inc., 2001 NSSC 161 ]

 

 

HEARD:         at Bridgewater, N.S. November 7, 2001.

 

WRITTEN                                                                 DECISION

DECISION:   Nov. 15, 2001                                     RELEASED: Nov. 15, 2001.

 

SUBJECT:     Criminal Law; Summary Conviction Appeal

 

SUMMARY:  Appellant appeals sentence of $2,000 fine for unsightly premises. At the informal                       sentencing hearing the appellant submitted it felt it had complied with the Order                   of the Municipality since the finding of guilt and the Crown disagreed offering                      recent photographs of the property.  Compliance was a factor to be considered on               sentencing.

 

ISSUE:            1) The procedure to be followed by a sentencing judge during oral informal                    sentencing submissions when confronted with conflicting submissions, materials,

assertions or facts which do not go to guilt or innocence but which have or could                        have a critical effect on the length/amount of the sentence. 2) Can the matter be                        remitted back to Trial Judge to hold a sentencing hearing to determine the proper                  sentence to be imposed?

 


HELD:            Principles in R. v. Newton (1982), 77 Cr. App. R. 13 and Williams v. R. (1984), Cr. App. R. 329 (Div. Ct.) applied.  If the appellant’s version was to be rejected by the Trial Judge it should only have been so after a sentencing hearing with findings on a beyond reasonable doubt basis.  Appellant entitled to the right to                 cross examine the author of the photographs submitted by the Crown on sentencing as proof of non-compliance with the Order.  Contrary views as to whether pursuant to s. 687(1) of the Criminal Code the Court of Appeal can remit the matter back to the Trial Judge for a sentencing hearing. Concluded it is for the Court of Appeal to determine a fit sentence on hearing further submissions.

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT’S DECISIONS.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT FROM THIS COVER SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.