- DATE: 20020408 DOCKET:C33888
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) and SHAID JALLOH (Appellant)
BEFORE:
ABELLA, GOUDGE AND SIMMONS JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Gregory Lafontaine
For the appellant
Nadia Thomas
For the respondent
HEARD:
March 8, 2002
On appeal from the conviction by Justice John F. Hamilton, dated February 17, 2000, and on appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice John F. Hamilton, dated March 17, 2000.
E N D O R S E M E N T
Released Orally March 8, 2002
[1] It was open to the trial judge to find that the appellant had assets and income which he did not disclose on his welfare application and, which, had he done so, would have resulted in his not receiving welfare.
[2] A fair reading of the trial judge’s reasons is that he disbelieved the appellant’s explanations, including his claims concerning assets said not to be his or to be pledged. Moreover, there is no doubt that the appellant’s lies on his periodic reporting, kept the welfare authorities from cutting him off, as they would have had they known of the deception. It was therefore open to the trial judge to find that simply as a result of these lies the appellant continued to receive welfare. In these circumstances, the conviction appeal must be dismissed.
[3] As to sentence, in all the circumstances we cannot find the sentence to be unfit. Leave to appeal sentence is granted but the sentence appeal is dismissed.
[4] Finally, in order to have the charge conform to the Criminal Code as it existed at the relevant time, we would on consent amend the indictment nunc pro tunc to charge the appellant with fraud over $1,000, and substitute a conviction for that offence, pursuant to s. 683(1)(g) of the Criminal Code.
“R.S. Abella J.A.”
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“Janet Simmons J.A.”