COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. ANTONIO MINAUDO (Appellant)
BEFORE:
DOHERTY, LASKIN and BORINS JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Paul Calarco
for the appellant
Amanda Rubaszek
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
September 6, 2006
On appeal from the decision entered by Justice Bryant of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 8, 2005.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1We are prepared to grant leave to appeal. We see no error in the disposition of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court and agree with the reasons.
2We add two comments. The suggestion that the trial judge drew improper inferences misunderstands the scope of the appellate review. If inferences are reasonably open, the weight to be given to the inference is for the trial judge and not the appellate court. The trial judge drew inferences from the appellant’s conversation with the victim’s mother. Those inferences were reasonably open. The trial judge gave those inferences prominence in his decision making process. It was within his purview to do so.
3We also note that in addition to the reasons given by the Summary Conviction Appeal Court for rejecting the proposed fresh evidence, that the document said to constitute fresh evidence indicates that the Human Rights Commission and not the complainant (as alleged by the appellant) was advancing a claim for $50,000 in damages and a mental anguish claim.
4We see no merit to the sentence appeal.
5The appeal is dismissed.