COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – WAYNE SLOAN (Appellant)
BEFORE:
WEILER, MOLDAVER and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Daniel Stein
for the appellant
Benita Wassenaar
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
January 7, 2004
On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice John D. D. Evans of the Ontario Court of Justice dated July 11, 2003, and the sentence imposed by Justice Evans dated August 20, 2003.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellant appeals his conviction for sexual assault. We interpret the trial judge’s use of the term corroboration as per Vetrovic and, in using the term, the trial judge considered whether the evidence of AB was confirmatory of NL’s evidence.
2The thrust of the defence was NL’s delay in disclosing the allegation of sexual abuse to the police. NL and the appellant had a volatile relationship with a lot of fighting and some abuse. On the night in question there was an argument that went on for hours. The morning after the alleged assault AB testified that NL “looked different than normal” and that she was “very, very troubled”. The trial judge was entitled to take this evidence into consideration in deciding whether something out of the ordinary happened on the night in question. This was a straightforward case and the trial judge dealt with the delay in disclosure as well as adverting to the inconsistencies in the evidence in his reasons.
3The appeal is dismissed.