COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. MARIOLA KOCH
(Appellant)
BEFORE: DOHERTY, ABELLA, MOLDAVER JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Keith E. Wright
For the appellant
Lisa Joyal
For the respondent
HEARD: July 13, 2000
On appeal from the conviction of Humphrey J. dated April 22, 1999.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1It is clear from his reasons that the trial judge was
satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant was
eager to volunteer information about the offence in the hopes of
gaining an advantage for herself and that she would have
conducted herself in precisely the same fashion had she been
given the toll-free number. Those findings were open to the
trial judge and we see no basis for interfering with them. It
follows that the admission of the impugned statements did not
impact on trial fairness.
2In describing the s. 10(b) violation as “technical” as
opposed to serious, the trial judge was obviously of the view
that the breach was not wilful or deliberate and that the police
were acting in good faith. Indeed, he specifically observed that
“the conduct of the police officers certainly would not tend to
bring the administration of justice into disrepute”. We see no
basis for interfering with that finding.
3In the circumstances, there is no basis for concluding that
the admission of the statements would bring greater harm to the
administration of justice than would their exclusion.
4Accordingly, the appeal from conviction is dismissed.
“Doherty J.A.”
“R. S. Abella J.A.”
“M. J. Moldaver J.A.”