COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. PAUL HACHEY
(appellant)
BEFORE: OSBORNE A.C.J.O., LASKIN and BORINS JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Pierre Bradley
For the appellant
David Finley
For the respondent
HEARD: February 4, 2000
On appeal from conviction by L. Gauthier J. dated November 29,
1996
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellant abandoned his submission on the ineffective
assistance of his trial counsel. He therefore argued only two
grounds of appeal: first that the verdict was unreasonable; and
second that the trial judge erred by not granting a mistrial.
2On the first submission, although this was a circumstantial
case, in the light of the cumulative effect of the evidence,
particularly the pathologist’s opinion and the unsigned letter,
the verdict was one that a properly instructed trier of fact
could reasonably have rendered. This ground of appeal therefore
fails.
3On the appellant’s second submission, the trial judge did
not err in the exercise of her discretion to refuse a mistrial.
Nor did the two letters meet the Palmer criteria for
admissibility. The letter of March 21, 1995, which was before
the trial judge, referred to the two earlier examinations of the
victim’s brother discussed in the two letters now sought to be
admitted at trial. Defence counsel had an opportunity to explore
and did explore the matters raised in these letters.
Accordingly, this ground of appeal also fails.
4The appeal is therefore dismissed.
“C.A. Osborne A.C.J.O.” “J.I. Laskin J.A.” “S. Borins J.A.”