taken under s. 830(1), we should assume that this was an appeal
taken under s. 830(1), rather than under s. 813(a)( ii). At all
events, we should determine a fit sentence on appeal.
 Part XXVII of the Criminal Code governs summary conviction proceedings including appeals from decisions rendered at
summary conviction trials. It contains two sections providing
rights of appeal: ss. 813 and 830(1).
 Under s. 813(a), a defendant in summary conviction proceedings may appeal to the “appeal court” as defined in s. 812(1)(a):
( i) from a conviction or order made against him;
( ii) against a sentence passed on him; or
( iii) against a verdict of unfit to stand trial or not criminally
responsible on account of mental disorder.
 The dispositive authority on appeals from sentence,
at least those not heard by trial de novo under s. 822(4), is that of
s. 687 of the Criminal Code. This is so because s. 822(1) incorpo-
rates s. 687 by reference. As a result, the authority of an appeal
judge on appeals from sentence under s. 813(a)( ii), unless the
sentence is one fixed by law, is to consider the fitness of the sen-
( i) vary the sentence within the limits prescribed by law for the
offence of which the accused was convicted; or
( ii) dismiss the appeal.
 The summary conviction appeal court has no authority to
remit a sentencing determination to the trial court on appeals
from sentence under s. 813(a)( ii).
 Under s. 830(1), a party to summary conviction proceedings may appeal against a
— verdict of acquittal
— verdict of NCRMD
— verdict of unfit to stand trial
— other final order or determination
on grounds of legal or jurisdictional error. The term “sentence”
nowhere appears in s. 830(1) or elsewhere in ss. 829-838, the