Court and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20211012 DOCKET: C67718

Rouleau, Benotto and Zarnett JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Victor Ossetchkine Appellant

Counsel: Victor Ossetchkine, acting in person Jeffrey Wyngaarden, for the respondent

Heard: October 4, 2021 by video conference

On appeal from the conviction entered on September 13, 2019 and the sentence imposed on October 18, 2019 by Justice J. Speyer of the Superior Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant was convicted by a jury of four counts of assault and two counts of assault with a weapon. The victims were his three children and his wife. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody, 3 years’ probation, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

[2] He appeals the conviction and sentence.

[3] The Crown alleged that, over a period of several years, the appellant assaulted each of his children and his wife. He repeatedly assaulted his son and oldest daughter with a bamboo stick and a leather belt when he was training them for karate. He used these devices to “correct” them if they failed to meet his expectations. They were also made to lie down on their stomachs with their hands at their sides while he struck them on the buttocks, thighs, and lower back. He made them fight each other and the loser would get hit. If there was a tie, they both got hit. The beatings continued until the son was 17 years old and the daughter was in university. The youngest daughter was physically disciplined from the age of four for innocuous behaviour such as not finishing her soup. He would twist her ears until she cried and lifted her off the ground by her ears. He assaulted his wife by choking her with both hands and shaking her.

[4] The appellant’s defence was that it did not happen. He testified at trial.

[5] The appellant submits that the jury verdict is wrong and repeats much of the evidence he submitted at trial. We do not give effect to these submissions.

[6] He also asserts ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Although the protocol was not followed and we have no evidence from trial counsel, we do not need to assess the performance aspect of this claim. The appellant has not met the threshold requirement of showing prejudice. That is because, even if his assertions are correct, the result of the trial would not change. There is no miscarriage of justice here.

[7] By way of example, the appellant submits that his trial counsel did not tell the jury that his wife lied about when her affidavit for family law proceedings was prepared in relation to when it was sworn or that it was prepared and sworn in secret; that he could not have exercised control over his wife because she was free to go to the grocery store two to three times a month; and that his wife lied about not having a cell phone. He also says that counsel agreed that the police witnesses would not be called, so the jury did not see the video statements showing the wife was not afraid as they were not produced.

[8] These matters would not have affected the jury verdict. The issue at trial was credibility. The complainants were extensively cross-examined, and the appellant testified at trial. The issues raised by the appellant had, at best, marginal relevance. In fact, most would not have assisted him, were irrelevant, or would have worked to his disadvantage. The jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown had proven its case with respect to the convictions. In fact, the appellant was acquitted of some of the charges against him.

[9] The sentencing reasons disclose no error in principle, and we do not interfere.

[10] The conviction appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal the sentence is allowed, but the sentence appeal is dismissed.

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“B. Zarnett J.A.”