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

[1] The 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.

[2] This 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.

[3] In 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.

[4] This 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.

[5] Moreover, the trial judge failed to deal with relevant evidence that had to be addressed before convicting the appellant.

[6] The 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.