Publication Notice: The order restricting publication in this proceeding made under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code is no longer in effect. As a result, a revised version of this judgment with the full name of the appellant in the citation, title of proceedings and list of parties was published on June 9, 2023.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2023-03-23 Docket: C70735

Judges: Feldman, Thorburn and Coroza JJ.A.

Parties

BETWEEN

His Majesty the King Respondent

and

Julie Menard Appellant

Counsel

Julie Menard, appearing by video conference Jessica Zita, appearing as duty counsel [1] Nicholas Hay, for the Crown

Heard and released orally: February 7, 2023 in person with the appellant appearing by video conference

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Trevor A. Brown of the Ontario Court of Justice on September 21, 2021, and the sentence imposed on April 26, 2022.

Endorsement

[1] Ms. Zita, as duty counsel, raised the issue of the error on the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 (“SOIRA”) order following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Ndhlovu, 2022 SCC 38, 474 D.L.R. (4th) 389.

[2] On consent, the SOIRA order is reduced from lifetime to 20 years.

[3] The appellant raised three grounds of appeal against conviction: 1) the verdict on invitation to sexual touching was unreasonable; 2) the trial judge applied an uneven standard of scrutiny to the evidence of the defence; and 3) the trial judge conflated credibility and reliability. In oral argument, the appellant also stated that the conviction was based on hearsay and that the children lived with her sister at the relevant time.

[4] We see no basis to interfere with the decision of the trial judge. He gave lengthy and thorough reasons for his findings and for his conclusions regarding the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. The verdicts were based on the evidence he accepted. There is no suggestion that there was hearsay evidence, nor do the reasons disclose any uneven treatment of the witnesses by the trial judge in assessing their credibility and reliability. The appeal against conviction is therefore dismissed.

[5] The appellant would like her sentence to be significantly reduced. This court accords deference to trial judges on the issue of sentence unless there is an error of law or a misapprehension of the evidence. We see no error here.

[6] As a result, the appeal against sentence is dismissed except with respect to the reduction of the SOIRA order to 20 years.

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“J.A. Thorburn J.A.”

“S. Coroza J.A.”