DATE: 20021206

DOCKET: C37662

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and– PAUL BOUVIER (Appellant)

BEFORE: LABROSSE, MOLDAVER and FELDMAN JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Peter Copeland, for the appellant

Moiz Rahman, for the respondent

HEARD: December 3, 2002

RELEASED ORALLY: December 3, 2002

The appellant, Paul Bouvier, appeals against the conviction imposed by Justice George T. Valin of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, dated February 2, 2001 and against the sentence imposed by Justice Valin dated May 7, 2001.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant was found guilty on two counts of trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine. He was also found guilty of extorting one of the women and threatening to kill her and burn her mother’s home. Finally, he was convicted of breach of probation by not keeping the peace in relation to the extortion attempt.

[2] The trial judge noted that credibility was the central issue in this case. The two versions of what transpired could not stand together. At the outset of his reasons, the trial judge stated that he did not believe the accused. He gave cogent reasons why he did not find the accused credible. He also stated that he was not left with any doubt with respect to the evidence of the accused. Then, out of an abundance of caution, although he was reluctant to characterize either Crown witness as an accomplice or disreputable witness, he decided to look for confirmatory evidence.

[3] Assuming this was a case where it was incumbent upon the trial judge to proceed with caution before acting on the evidence of the two main Crown witnesses, the trial judge did so. In a limited way, the confirmatory evidence cited by the trial judge did confirm the Crown witnesses’ evidence and to the extent needed, it restored his faith in the credibility and reliability of their testimony. Accordingly, he acted on their evidence and convicted the appellant. We see no error in the convictions.

[4] The appellant was properly convicted of both drug counts, since each count constituted a different transaction to a different person. However, the Crown concedes that the trial judge should have stayed the threatening counts given that the threats were subsumed in the extortion count. The threatening counts are accordingly stayed.

[5] With respect to sentence, we would not disturb the totality of the sentences imposed. Except as stated above, the appeal is dismissed.

Signed: “J.M. Labrosse J.A.”

“M.J. Moldaver J.A”

“K. Weiler J.A.”