DATE: 20020130
DOCKET: C32924
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) and HOYLE DeHAAN (Appellant)
BEFORE:
CATZMAN, BORINS AND SIMMONS JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Tanya Kranjc
for the appellant
Nadia Thomas
for the respondent
HEARD:
January 25, 2002
On appeal from the conviction and sentence imposed by Justice Douglas V. Latimer on April 8, 1999.
E N D O R S E M E N T
Released Orally: January 25, 2002
[1] This is an appeal by Mr. DeHaan from his convictions for dangerous driving, two counts of failing to comply with the conditions of an undertaking and threatening to damage property.
[2] In our view, it would be unsafe to permit the appellant’s convictions to stand. The only witnesses who provided direct evidence with respect to the commission of the four offences were the complainant and the appellant. The trial judge accepted the complainant’s evidence and rejected the appellant’s evidence, largely, it would seem, on the basis of the demeanour of the two witnesses.
[3] There was a noticeable absence of any analysis of the complainant’s evidence even though it contained significant inconsistencies. As in the decision of this court in R. v. Norman (1993), 87 C.C.C. (3d) 153 at 172-173, an assessment of credibility based on demeanour alone is not good enough in a case where there are significant inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness. The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflicting evidence, cannot be gauged solely on the basis of whether the demeanour of the witness carried a conviction of truth.
[4] This is particularly true in this case where there was no other evidentiary support for the complainant’s account of what occurred and the consistency of her evidence was subject to scrutiny. The trial judge’s reasons demonstrated that he failed to grasp the importance of the inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony when assessing her credibility.
[5] In addition, the trial judge did not consider the evidence with respect to each count separately. He appears to have inappropriately considered the evidence globally with respect to all of the counts.
[6] Therefore, we would allow the appeal, set aside the convictions and order that there be a new trial. However, in view of the fact that the appellant has served the sentence, the Crown may wish to consider if it will proceed with a new trial.
“M. A. Catzman J.A.”
“S. Borins J.A.”
“J. M. Simmons J.A.”