COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20061124

DOCKET: C42673 & C42868

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – GERALD TAILLEFER and MICHAEL ST. LOUIS (Appellants)

BEFORE: MOLDAVER, JURIANSZ and ROULEAU JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

C. Tomusiak for the appellant for the appellant Michael St. Louis

V. Rondinelli for the appellant Gerald Taillefer

David Lepofsky for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED: November 23, 2006

On appeal from conviction by Justice Louise L. Gauthier of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 7, 2004 and sentence imposed November 19, 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, it was open to the trial judge to find that there was no air of reality to Mr. St. Louis’ defence of duress. It is clear from the trial judge’s reasons that she dismissed his duress claim on the ground that assuming that he had been threatened by Craig, there was no air of reality to his claim that he took part in the robbery solely because of the alleged threat. In any event, even if the trial judge did err as alleged, we are satisfied that the verdict would inevitably have been the same.

[2] As for Mr. Taillefer, the appeal is largely fact driven. The trial judge looked at the whole of the circumstances, made findings of credibility against Mr. Taillefer on important issues and found that the Crown had rebutted the defence of duress. We see no error in her legal analysis, and the findings of fact which she made in rejecting the defence were amply supported by the evidence.

[3] The inconsistent verdict arguments likewise fail. The trial jduge found sufficient differences in respect of Mr. Roach. Those findings were open to her and explain the different verdicts.

[4] Accordingly, the appeals from conviction are dismissed. The appeals from sentence are dismissed as abandoned.