Court of Appeal for Ontario

R. v. K.L.

Date: 2001-07-12

Peter G. Kirby, for the appellant;

Crown counsel not disclosed.

(C33970)

[1] Doherty, J.A.: The trial judge reviewed the principle governing the admissibility of similar fact evidence. Despite some differences among the 3 witnesses as to the nature and duration of the sexual activity involving the appellant, it was open to the trial judge to find that the evidence of the other two complainants was admissible on the counts involving B.W. and could enhance the reliability of her evidence.

[2] The trial judge's finding that B.W. somewhat overstated the number of times the appellant visited her home in Winnipeg (the site of some of the assaults) was not inconsistent with his finding that the appellant "frequently and persistently" sexually assaulted B.W. over a number of years.

[3] The inconsistencies between the formal findings of the trial judge and the evidence were on matters of no consequence. His material findings of fact are fully supported by the evidence.

[4] The trial judge concluded the submission that the appellant should be found to be a long term offender under s. 753.1(1) instead of a dangerous offender. He concluded that the sentencing powers under s. 753.1(1) did not adequately protect the public from the appellant. We cannot say that this conclusion is unreasonable or flows from some misapprehension of relevant evidence.

[5] There was ample evidence to support the finding that the appellant was a dangerous offender as defined in s. 753 of the C.C. The imposition of an indeterminate sentence following that finding was appropriate in these circumstances.

Appeals dismissed.