R. v. Rompre, 2015 ONCA 707

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Rompre, 2015 ONCA 707 Date: 2015-10-22 Docket: C59904

Before: Watt, Hourigan and Huscroft JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Jean Rompre Appellant

Counsel: Ian Carter, for the appellant Chris de Sa, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: October 21, 2015

On appeal from the conviction entered on October 1, 2014 by Justice Timothy D. Ray of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

Endorsement

1The appellant was convicted of possession for the purposes of trafficking and two counts of possession of the proceeds of crime. His arrest arose out of a routine traffic stop, after he was observed running a red light. The officer who stopped his car smelled fresh marijuana and discovered over three kilograms in the back seat and trunk, along with bundles of thousand dollar bills.

2The appellant argued that he was subject to an unreasonable search in violation of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and called no evidence at the blended voir dire. The trial judge proceeded on the basis that the Crown had to establish reasonable and probable grounds to conduct the traffic stop in order to establish that the search was legal, and that this had to be established on the balance of probabilities.

3The trial judge expressed concerns regarding the evidence of the arresting officer, who was found guilty of discreditable conduct in 2009 for calling in sick on behalf of another officer. In particular, the trial judge found that the officer was not forthright in his testimony about the 2009 incident and expressed “serious doubt” about his testimony concerning the traffic stop. However, the trial judge accepted the evidence of a second officer who arrived on the scene, which he considered added weight to the arresting officer’s evidence, and on this basis concluded that there were reasonable and probable grounds for the traffic stop.

4The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in concluding that the arresting officer’s testimony was confirmed by the other officer and that he misapprehended the evidence of the confirmatory witness in any event.

5We disagree. It was open to the trial judge to accept or reject the evidence of the arresting officer, with or without confirmatory evidence. The arrest arose out of a routine traffic stop and the evidence of the second officer on the scene confirmed much of the testimony of the arresting officer. The second officer was not present when the appellant was said to have ran the red light, but his testimony as to experience at the intersection where the stop occurred confirmed visibility issues and he confirmed other aspects of the arresting officer’s account as well.

6There is no basis for the court to interfere with the findings of the trial judge.

7The appeal is dismissed.