house to plant a gun. In light of that admission, the inference that he intentionally
provided false information in the ITO is irresistible. She was entitled to reject
the explanations offered by the accused as making no sense in light of the text messages and the ITO, which constituted the case for the Crown.
These offences were easy to commit and hard to prove. The offences in question
struck at the very soul of the judicial system. Police officers have a special position of trust to uphold principles of justice system. The paramount sentencing
objectives in this case were denunciation and deterrence. The likelihood of loss of
employment is not sufficient to satisfy the need for deterrence nor to give proper
weight to the breach of trust. The sentence was not unfit.
Cases referred to
R. v. D. (J.J.R.),  O.J. No. 4749, 218 O.A.C. 37, 215 C.C.C. (3d) 252,
72 W.C.B. (2d) 1 (C.A.); R. v. W. (D.),  1 S.C.R. 742,  S.C.J. No. 26,
122 N.R. 277, J.E. 91-603, 46 O.A.C. 352, 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397, 3 C.R. (4th) 302,
EYB 1991-67602, 12 W.C.B. (2d) 551
Statutes referred to
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 11 [as am.]
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 139(2)
APPEAL by the accused from the conviction entered, 
O.J. No. 496, 2016 ONSC 548 (S.C.J.) and the sentence imposed
on May 19, 2016 by Braid J. of the Superior Court of Justice,
sitting without a jury.
Gregory Lafontaine, for appellant.
Randy Schwartz, for respondent.
 BY THE COURT: — The appellant was convicted of one count
of perjury and two counts of attempting to obstruct justice after
a trial before a judge of the Superior Court of Justice sitting
without a jury. The trial judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment for five years on each count and directed that the sentences be served concurrently.
 The appellant appeals both conviction and sentence.
 At the conclusion of argument, we dismissed both appeals.
We promised to provide reasons for our decision. These reasons
fulfill that promise.
The Background Facts
 Essential to an understanding of the issues raised in this
court is a description of the circumstances upon which the convictions are grounded.
 During the events that provide the genesis of this prosecution, Robert Hansen was a detective constable in the Gangs and