W A R N I N G

The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding under s. 486(3) of the Criminal Code, concerning the identity of and any evidence that would tend to identify the complainant(s), shall continue. Subsections 486(3) and 486(5) of the Criminal Code provide:

486.(3) Subject to subsection (4), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that the identity of a complainant or a witness and any information that could disclose the identity of the complainant or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way, when an accused is charged with

(a) any of the following offences:

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 346 or 347,

(ii) an offence under section 144, 145, 149, 156, 245 or 246 of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or

(iii) an offence under section 146, 151, 153, 155, 157, 166 or 167 of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i), (ii) and (iii).

(5) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection (3) or (4.1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S., c. C-34, s. 442; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 44; 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, s. 74, c. 125, s. 25; R.S.C. 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 14; c. 23 (4th Supp.), s. 1; 1992, c. 21, s. 9; 1993, c. 45, s. 7; 1997, c. 16, s. 6; 1999, c. 25, s. 2; 2001, c. 32, s. 29; 2001, c. 41, s. 16, 34 and 133(13), (14); 2002, c. 13, s. 20.

DATE: 20050314

DOCKET: C41884

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – J. A. B. (Appellant)

BEFORE:

GOUDGE, FELDMAN AND BLAIR JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Mark D. Eshuis

for the appellant

Lucy Cecchetto

for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

March 10, 2005

On appeal from the conviction by Justice Joseph Quinn of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 13, 2004 and from the sentence imposed by Justice Joseph Quinn dated April 26, 2004

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] In our view this case does not meet the test for unreasonable verdict. There was ample evidence on which a reasonable trier could convict. This was a credibility case. The importance to be attached to the complainant’s change of evidence about her reasons for moving was a matter for the trial judge. The conviction appeal must be dismissed.

[2] As to sentence, the sentencing judge erred in finding that the complainant’s weight gain was caused by the sexual exploitation, with no new evidence beyond that at trial, where he had concluded that he could not find the weight gain caused by the sexual exploitation. Nevertheless, setting this aside, we think in all the circumstances the sentence imposed was fit and appropriate.

[3] Leave to appeal sentence granted but the sentence appeal is dismissed.