R. v. Rodrigues, 2023 ONCA 772

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2023-11-15 Docket: C66615

Before: Feldman, Brown and Monahan JJ.A.

Between: His Majesty the King Respondent

And: Joshua Rodrigues Appellant

Counsel: Aidan Seymour-Butler, for the appellant Kevin Pitt, for the respondent

Heard and delivered orally: November 9, 2023

On appeal from the conviction entered on December 8, 2016 and the sentence imposed on February 15, 2017 by Justice Kimberley A. Crosbie of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1]

Conviction Appeal

This is the matter of R. v. Rodrigues. The appellant raises one ground of appeal in his conviction appeal, which is that the verdict is unreasonable. In particular, he submits that the trial judge used illogical reasoning to reject the testimony of the appellant, finding inconsistencies in his explanations that do not bear scrutiny. He submits that the trial judge’s error is the type described in R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190, as described by Watt J.A. in R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25, at para. 75:

In cases tried without a jury, the unreasonableness analysis required under R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190, involves scrutiny of the logic of the judge’s findings of fact or inferences drawn from the evidence admitted at trial: R. v. Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 15, 44. Under this test, an appellate court can interfere where a trial judge draws an inference or makes a finding of fact that is:

i. plainly contradicted by the evidence relied upon by the judge for that purpose; or

ii. demonstrably incompatible with evidence that is not otherwise contradicted or rejected by the trial judge: Sinclair, at para. 16.

2We do not accept this submission. The trial judge gave detailed, comprehensive reasons for her findings, including for her rejection of the appellant’s evidence. We do not agree that her reasons are illogical or inconsistent with the evidence, or that the verdict is unreasonable.

3The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

[4]

Sentence Appeal

The appeal against sentence regarding setting aside the victim fee surcharge of $1,800 is allowed on consent. That portion of the sentence order is set aside. To that extent, the appeal against sentence is allowed.