WARNING
THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
AND IS SUBJECT TO:
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act.
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person.
(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or 46(1) (prohibition against disclosure) of the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Moldaver, Feldman and MacFarland JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
and
J. K.
Appellant
Paul Calarco, for the appellant
Nadia Thomas, for the respondent
Heard and endorsed: January 5, 2011
On appeal from conviction entered by Justice Roderick J. Flaherty of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated March 24, 2009.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1Despite Mr. Calarco’s able argument, we are not persuaded that the trial judge erred in concluding that the appellant was one of the participants in the assault and robbery of the complainant. The trial judge was very alive to the frailties in N.S.’s character and his evidence. He instructed himself in accordance with the principles of Vetrovec, after noting that it would be dangerous to convict on the unconfirmed evidence of N.S. The trial judge then looked to the record and found several items of confirmation that restored his faith in N.S. and led him to conclude, in all the circumstances, that he could safely act on his evidence to convict. While the evidence the trial judge relied upon as confirmatory did not directly implicate the appellant and while it may not have been of the strongest quality, that did not prevent the trial judge from acting on it. As the Supreme Court of Canada said in Kehler (2004), 181 C.C.C. (3d) at para. 16:
As the appellant himself concedes, it is clear from Vetrovec, supra, that independent evidence, to be considered confirmatory, does not have to implicate the accused. There is no separate rule in this regard for cases where the only evidence of the accused’s participation in the offence is that of a tainted witness.
2Accordingly, the appeal from conviction is dismissed.