Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Belanger, 2008 ONCA 698

DATE: 20081010

DOCKET: C48918

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

BEFORE: Winkler C.J.O., Sharpe and Juriansz JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Douglas Belanger (Applicant/Appellant)

COUNSEL: Paul Calarco for the appellant Alexandra Campbell for the respondent

HEARD: October 9, 2008

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Jeff Casey of the Ontario Court of Justice dated January 24, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant argues that the verdict was unreasonable. We disagree. The trial judge did not, as we read his reasons, misuse the shoe evidence. He limited its use to linking the man in the video with the perpetrator of the break and enter. The evidence related to the appellant’s CAA card, found three months after the crime in the possession of the woman seen in the video is clearly entitled to limited weight. The trial judge, in our view, appreciated that and did not place undue reliance on it. Nor do we agree that the trial judge erred in his treatment of the video identification by the police. The officers were familiar with the appellant from past dealings, and they identified distinctive features of the appellant. We do not agree that the trial judge was required to view the video equipment used by the police. It was open to him to accept their evidence that their equipment was superior to that available in court.

[2] Accordingly the appeal against conviction is dismissed.