R. v. Hodgkin, 2024 ONCA 100

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Hodgkin, 2024 ONCA 100 DATE: 20240208 DOCKET: COA-23-CR-0928 Fairburn A.C.J.O., Rouleau and Trotter JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Joseph Hodgkin Appellant Joseph Hodgkin, acting in person Dan Stein, appearing as duty counsel Avene Derwa, for the respondent Heard and released orally: February 6, 2024 On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Kelly C. Tranquilli of the Superior Court of Justice on May 17, 2023. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant pled guilty to accessory after the fact to murder.

The sentencing reasons speak for themselves, and there is noneed to repeat the horrific circumstances around the disposal and, later, discovery of the deceased’s body. [2] The sentencing judge’s reasons are thorough and reflect a careful and thoughtful review of the appellant’s circumstances, as wellas the seriousness of the crime. Even so, as the Crown respondent acknowledges, the reasons contain an error in principle, specificallythat the sentencing judge failed to take R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, principles into account.

Despite thiserror, the Crown respondent says that the sentence would have been the same even if the sentencing judge had applied Gladueprinciples. We agree. [3] The defence counsel waived a Gladue report, instead content to rely on a presentence report where Gladue was addressed.During submissions on sentence, defence counsel said he would not be emphasizing Gladue, given that it was unclear how theseprinciples would apply to this case. [4] In our view, the reasons for sentence adequately addressed the appellant’s background and, specifically, they acknowledged theappellant’s Indigeneity.

Taken in its full context, having regard to all of the circumstances, we are satisfied that this sentence would havebeen the same had the trial judge conducted a specific Gladue analysis. [5] We wish to acknowledge that the appellant appears to be doing very well at the Ontario Correctional Institute, and we commendhim for his efforts toward rehabilitation. [6] The warrant of committal in this case appears to contain an error, in that the Long-Term Offender (“LTO”) box is ticked. Theparties agree that there was no LTO finding in this matter.

The warrant of committal in this case should be corrected. [7] Leave to appeal sentence is granted. The appeal is dismissed. “Fairburn A.C.J.O.” “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “G.T. Trotter J.A.”