Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-10-23

Docket: COA-24-CR-0372 [1]

Judges: Coroza, Copeland, and Madsen JJ.A.

Between

His Majesty the King Respondent

and

D.V. Appellant

Counsel

Andrew Furgiuele and David Hakim, for the appellant

Julia Cappellacci, for the respondent

Heard

October 1, 2025

Appeal Information

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Frederic M. Campling of the Ontario Court of Justice, on November 22, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant appeals his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference in relation to offences against his stepdaughter, contrary to s. 271 and 151(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. He argues that the trial judge used the complainant's lack of embellishment as a makeweight in favour of credibility, contrary to the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gerrard, 2022 SCC 13, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 279, at para. 5, and this court's decisions in R. v. Kiss, 2018 ONCA 184, at para. 52 and R. v. Alisaleh, 2020 ONCA 597, at para. 16. The appellant also submits that the trial judge's reasons for judgment are insufficient for appellate review. He candidly acknowledges that the second argument rests to a significant degree on the success of the first.

[2] The complainant was the appellant's stepdaughter. She alleged that when she was between the ages of 10 and 15, the appellant sexually assaulted her almost weekly by touching her breasts, buttocks, and vagina with his mouth and hands. The assaults took place in various locations in the family home, and once in the appellant's truck. The complainant testified that the appellant would usually call her into the garage or the basement, and once she got a cell phone, would text her to come see him. The complainant gave a police statement in 2019 when she was 15 years old, which was admitted into evidence under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

[3] The complainant's mother testified that she had no knowledge of the assaults, but said there were "definitely times" when the complainant and the appellant were alone together. The neighbour testified that she noticed the complainant was uncomfortable around the appellant. When she asked the complainant if the appellant had ever touched her inappropriately, the complainant "turned white as a ghost and bawled her eyes out." The police became involved shortly thereafter.

[4] The appellant testified, denying any wrongdoing.

[5] Turning to the first ground of appeal, we do not accept the assertion that the trial judge used the complainant's lack of embellishment as a makeweight, or indeed that he found the complainant did not embellish. When the trial judge stated, as one of several reasons for finding the complainant to be credible, that "she would not give as sworn evidence about anything she was in doubt about", he was simply finding that she was a careful and cautious witness. The trial judge was entitled to consider the complainant's caution as part of his credibility analysis, to which this court owes deference. The trial judge also found that the complainant testified in a clear, straightforward manner, and, in response to the defence submission that she lied in her testimony, found no evidence of a motive to fabricate.

[6] Nor do we accept the appellant's second argument that the reasons, more broadly, are insufficient and incapable of appellate review. The task of an appellate court is not to finely parse the trial judge's reasons in search of error. Rather, we are to assess whether the reasons, when read in context and as a whole, in light of the live issues at trial, explain what the trial judge decided and why: R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 801, at para. 69. The reasons must be considered "as a whole, in the context of the evidence and the arguments at trial": G.F., at para. 108.

[7] We acknowledge that the reasons, delivered orally at the conclusion of a short trial are brief. However, in our view those reasons permit appellate review. The trial judge instructed himself at least twice on the Crown's burden. He assessed the appellant's denial "in the context of the total body of evidence", including the testimony of the complainant's mother and the neighbour, which he found to be credible. The appellant's criminal record that included crimes of dishonesty was also a factor in the rejection of his evidence.

[8] As noted, the trial judge provided several reasons for finding the complainant credible. We accept the Crown's argument that any inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding text messages, were at most peripheral, given her evidence that the appellant usually summoned her verbally. The suggestion of "collusion" with the neighbour was also unsubstantiated on the record, and in any event, was not put to the neighbour in cross-examination. Finally, it is apparent within the record as a whole that the mother's testimony corroborated the appellant's opportunity for the assaults.

[9] On balance, we are not persuaded that the trial judge erred. Although the trial judge's reasons are brief, he adequately explains why, at the conclusion of this short trial, he was not left in reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt.

[10] The appeal is dismissed.

S. Coroza J.A.

J. Copeland J.A.

L. Madsen J.A.

[1] This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.