CITATION: R. v. Wint, 2007 ONCA 708

DATE: 20071016

DOCKET: C45476

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

MOLDAVER, FELDMAN and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

and

CURTIS WINT

Appellant

Catherine Glaister for the appellant

Lisa Joyal for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: October 12, 2007

On appeal from conviction by Justice David Corbett of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, dated January 25, 2006.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] In our view, the trial judge erred in his approach to this case by treating the trial as a credibility contest, which he resolved, at least in part, by engaging in what we believe to be improper propensity reasoning based on the appellant’s criminal record.

[2] After reviewing the evidence of the complainants (the three correctional officers) he stated that he accepted their evidence. He then turned to the evidence of the appellant and said:

The next question is whether Mr. Wint’s evidence raises a reasonable doubt. In my view it does not. Mr. Wint has a long record of criminal behaviour involving dishonesty and when his credibility is stacked up against the word of three correction officers, I am not going to accept his evidence. [Emphasis added.]

[3] As indicated, that approach was erroneous and not in accord with the requirements of R. v. W.D. Also, it did not amount to a proper analysis of the appellant’s testimony.

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the conviction is set aside and a new trial is ordered.