COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) -and-
GULED ROBLE (Appellant)
BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., DOHERTY and LANG JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Daniel A. Stein for the appellant
Nadia Thomas for the respondent
HEARD: September 15, 2004
RELEASED ORALLY: September 15, 2004
On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Peter A. Grossi of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, on May 29, 2002.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1A fair reading of the trial judge’s reasons shows that he did not base his credibility assessment of the appellant’s evidence solely on demeanour.
2Demeanour was relevant in this case because, at least initially, the appellant’s hanging of his head while giving his evidence gave rise to the concern raised by the Crown at trial that he was reading from notes.
3The trial judge referenced the applicable burden of proof and principles enunciated in R. v. W.(D.)., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.
4He was entitled to conclude that the appellant’s evidence was “scripted”, that it appeared that the appellant was simply tailoring his evidence to fit the events described, and that it simply did not have the “ring of truth”.
5The trial judge reviewed the appellant’s explanation with respect to the various counts and found those specific explanations to be implausible, or “incredulous” or an attempt to “tailor his evidence”, or “well though out” or “convoluted”. These findings do not suggest that he was applying a different standard to the evidence of the appellant.
6The appeal is dismissed.
Signed: “R. Roy McMurtry C.J.O.”
“Doherty J.A.”
“S.E. Lang J.A.”