Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judges: MOLDAVER, GILLESE and LaFORME JJ.A.
Between:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent
And
PIERRE SAVAGE Appellant
Counsel: Gregory Lafontaine for the appellant Roger Pinnock for the respondent
Heard & Endorsed: March 30, 2007
On appeal from conviction by Justice George T. Valin, of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, dated March 9, 2005.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1With respect to the trial judge’s understanding and application of the doctrine of recent possession, which we acknowledge that on occasion, he improperly used the term “presumption”, when his reasons are read as a whole, we are satisfied that he articulated and understood the legal principles correctly and properly applied the doctrine throughout. We reject the submission that in his application of the doctrine, he reversed the onus and placed a burden on the appellant. On the contrary, read as a whole, the trial judge’s approach to drawing inferences from the evidence was one of caution and eminent fairness to the appellant.
2With respect to s. 11(b), we are satisfied that it was open to the trial judge, in the exercise of his discretion, to treat the appellant differently from his co-accused having regard to the greater number of charges that he faced, his apparent role in the offences and the minimal prejudice he suffered from the delay.
3In the result, we see no basis for interfering with the trial judge’s decision.
4Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.