COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Zarnett, Favreau and Madsen JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King
Respondent
and
Bassam Alhaddad
Appellant
Jocelyn Rempel, for the appellant
Julia Cappellacci, for the respondent
Heard and rendered orally: June 4, 2026
On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Trevor A. Brown of the Ontario Court of Justice, on January 28, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant was the complainant’s driving instructor. They had five driving lessons together. The complainant alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted her, including by touching her vagina over her clothes during the fifth lesson. The only witnesses at trial were the complainant and the appellant. The trial judge convicted the appellant of sexual assault.
2The appellant submits that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the witnesses’ evidence, that he misapprehended some of the complainant’s evidence, that he failed to address some material inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and that he assessed the witnesses’ evidence by taking improper judicial notice of behavioural expectations.
3We see no reversible error in the trial judge’s decision.
4This was a credibility case. The trial judge applied the correct legal principles in assessing the witnesses’ evidence. He found the complainant credible. He had concerns with the appellant’s credibility. He found that his evidence and the evidence as a whole did not leave him with a reasonable doubt. He ultimately found that, in accordance with R. v. J.J.R.D. (2006), 2006 40088 (ON CA), 215 C.C.C. (3d) 252 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 69, his acceptance of the complainant’s evidence led him to reject the appellant’s evidence and to conclude that he was satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
5This court owes the trial judge’s findings of credibility significant deference. We are satisfied that any misstatements of the complainant’s evidence were not material to his analysis or to the outcome. In addition, the trial judge was not required to address all inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. He grappled with some of these inconsistencies and was satisfied that these were either explained by the fact that English was not the complainant’s first language or were not significant enough to detract from his overall assessment of the complainant’s credibility.
6We also do not accept that the trial judge improperly took judicial notice of certain social norms to excuse some aspects of the complainant’s testimony or to discredit some aspects of the appellant’s evidence. The trial judge did not improperly rely on myths and stereotypes. He was entitled to use common sense and human experience in assessing the witnesses’ credibility.
7We are also satisfied that the appellant has not met the high bar for demonstrating that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.
8The appeal is dismissed.
“B. Zarnett J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”
“L. Madsen J.A.”
Footnotes
- This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.