DATE: 20060131
DOCKET: C42972
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and- DONNA MACLEOD (Appellant)
BEFORE:
LABROSSE, MOLDAVER AND MACFARLAND JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Mangesh Duggal
for the appellant
Steve A. Coroza
for the respondent
HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:
January 19, 2006
On appeal from the judgment of Morton J. of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated September 9, 2004 made at Brampton, Ontario.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The reasons in this case do not satisfy the requirements for a trial judge to provide adequate reasons for the conviction of the accused. The reasons represent a one-page judgment.
2This was a serious charge that resulted in the equivalent of a sentence of fifteen months’ imprisonment for which the trial judge gave twelve pages of reasons.
3In his reasons for convicting, other than mentioning that he was in agreement with the Crown Attorney, the trial judge, in two paragraphs, stated that he did not believe the appellant.
4This was not an overwhelming case. In particular, the reasons for disbelieving the appellant are inadequate in light of the decision in R. v. Sheppard (2002), 2002 SCC 26, 162 C.C.C. (3d) 298 (S.C.C.). The trial judge had a duty to give adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence. He did not do so.
5Moreover, the trial judge failed to deal with relevant evidence that had to be addressed before convicting the appellant.
6The appeal is allowed; the conviction is quashed. Normally, we would order a new trial. However, the Crown’s case is so frail that we have decided to stay the charge, noting that the sentence has been served in full by the appellant.