CITAION: R. v. Booth, 2007 ONCA 97

DATE: 20070214

DOCKET: C44103

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – RICHARD BOOTH (Appellant)

BEFORE:

GOUDGE, LANG AND MACFARLAND JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Leslie Maunder

for the appellant

Amanda Rubaszek

for the respondent

HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY:

February 6, 2007

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Richard G. Byers of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 13, 2005 and from the sentence imposed by Justice Byers dated June 17, 2005.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellant raises three issues.

[2] First, he says the trial judge failed to appreciate the unsavoury witnesses’ motives to fabricate. We do not agree. The trial judge was alive to the need to view their evidence with caution. He articulates why nonetheless he accepts their evidence. While he does not explicitly address some of the factors that raise the need for caution, this was a judge alone trial, and we are satisfied that he considered their evidence with the appropriate caution.

[3] Second, the appellant says that the reasons for judgment are insufficient. Again, we disagree. While the reasons could have been more complete, these reasons are more than adequate for meaningful appellate review. It is clear why the appellant was convicted. The findings of fact, although cryptic, suggest no error of law, and there is no other basis to displace the presumption that trial judges know the law. Nor were more detailed findings of fact needed to resolve any conflicts on the evidence. The reasons do not leave the appellant in any doubt about why he was convicted.

[4] Finally, the trial judge’s rejection of O’Sullivan’s evidence, although conclusory, is sufficient in these circumstances, given his other findings.

[5] The appeal must be dismissed.

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”

“S.E. Lang J.A.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”