Kaitlyn Braun's ruling explained: Why the judge accepted a sentence he didn't like

It’s a sentence that was criticized by both the victims – and the judge.

On Wednesday Kaitlyn Braun, the Brantford, Ont. woman who plead guilty to defrauding and deceiving doulas, was sentenced to two years of house arrest and three years probation.

After the verdict, many of her victims told CTV News that it was unacceptable.

“I'm upset, I'm really upset,” Maighen Stanley said. “I was with her for nearly a week. I was one of the victims who had assault charges [against her] before they were withdrawn. I am disgusted with her lawyer and our Crown attorney.”

During the hearing, Justice Robert Gee also appeared to struggle with the sentence that came as the result of a joint submission from the Crown attorney and Braun’s defense counsel.

“I do not like the joint submission and I don’t like how it was structured,” the judge said.

Justice Gee explained that he was troubled by a mental health assessment that indicated Braun was likely to reoffend.

Despite his reservations, Justice Gee said higher courts have indicated they expect judges to allow joint submissions except in extreme cases.

“Judges are told to go along with joint submissions even if they disagree.”

Ari Goldkind, a criminal defense lawyer not associated with Braun’s case, said joint submissions are common and typically not an issue in the courtroom.

“Before a case even sees a judge for a guilty plea there is often what's called the joint position where the Crown and defense have a meeting of the minds,” he explained. “They lock down the plea. Once a judge gets confronted with that, it is very difficult for a judge to do what's called ‘jumping’ a joint position.”

According to Goldkind, there are many reasons a joint submission may be rejected but time, and court resources, are the most common.

“Every day there is a number of cases that get tossed for a delay because the trial doesn't take place in a reasonable time,” he added. “You're going to have a system that is going to become so much more backed up than it is [right now].”

Goldkind said a judge will only step up when they think the sentence is outside the normal range.

“If a judge thinks a joint position is so horrible, almost unlawful, they are duty bound to tell the lawyers that [and] to set another date for a hearing.”

In Braun’s case, Goldkind believes the sentence was reasonable but likely at the very low end of that range.

“Even though the judge thought the joint position probably stunk, it was probably still a lawful decision that he probably figured out another judge may accept.”