COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Sharpe, Gillese and Watt JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Michael Harrison
Appellant
Stephanie Heyens, for the appellant
Lisa Csele and Nick Devlin, for the respondent
Heard: October 1, 2012
On appeal from the conviction and the sentence imposed on May 10, 2011 by Justice Bruce Young of the Ontario Court of Justice.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant submits with respect to both conviction and entrapment that the trial judge’s findings were unreasonable, that he misapprehended material evidence and that his reasons were inadequate.
2We disagree.
3Following a conversation in which coded language commonly used in drug deals was used, the appellant met the undercover officer as agreed. No transaction was consummated but there was clearly evidence to support the trial judge’s finding that the appellant agreed to sell the officer heroin.
4We do not accept the submission that the trial judge’s failure to explain why the appellant’s behaviour after he got into the car and the fact that the appellant was not in possession of drugs when arrested is fatal to the conviction. The trial judge explicitly found that the appellant was not credible and specifically rejected the appellant’s description of what happened at the relevant time.
5Perhaps the trial judge could have said more but, given the nature of the issues posed, the reasons are adequate to explain to the appellant and to this court why he was convicted.
6In our view, the decision of this court in R. v. Imoro, [2010] ONCA 122, aff’d 2010 SCC 50, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 62 is fatal to the appellant’s argument on entrapment. As in Imoro, there was an initial call that can properly be characterized as investigatory, followed by a face to face meeting where, on the finding of the trial judge, conduct amounting to trafficking occurred, namely, the appellant agreed to the complete drug deal discussed on the telephone.
7Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.