Court File and Parties

Citation: R. v. Jebreen, 2008 ONCA 78 Date: 2008-02-07 Docket: C46977

Court of Appeal for Ontario Doherty, Borins and Lang JJ.A.

Between: Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent) and Paul Jebreen (Appellant)

Counsel: Michael W. Lacy for the appellant Paul McDermott for the respondent

Heard and orally released: February 4, 2008

On appeal from the decision of Justice J.S. O’Neill of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 19, 2007.

Endorsement

[1] We agree with the summary conviction appeal court judge that the trial judge’s reasons were adequate and do not constitute an error in law. The reasons of the trial judge make it clear why he convicted the appellant. The trial judge found after a consideration of all of the evidence the following:

• the complainant was assaulted in the manner in which he testified he was assaulted;
• the complainant’s assailant came out of a blue car in front of the complainant’s home immediately before the assault;
• the complainant pointed out this car to his mother within about ten minutes of the assault;
• the complainant saw the person who came out of the car and assaulted him run towards the neighbouring home;
• the appellant was found by the police in the neighbouring home a short time after the assault; and
• the blue car identified by the complainant was owned by the appellant’s girlfriend and driven by the appellant.

[2] The trial judge laid out a clear evidentiary path to his verdict. The findings he made were available to him. In our view, the trial judge cannot be faulted for a failure to address in detail other legal or evidentiary issues that may have been significant to his verdict had he pursued a different evidentiary analysis.

[3] The appellant has not convinced us that the trial judge implicitly reversed the onus of proof or failed to take into account the appellant’s exculpatory version of events.

[4] The appellant also argues that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence. The appellant argues that the trial judge misunderstood the complainant’s evidence as to whether he saw his assailant enter the home in which the appellant was eventually found. Both counsel have reviewed the evidence with us. The complainant’s evidence on this point was somewhat different in cross-examination than it was in his examination in-chief. The trial judge’s reasons do not reflect any misapprehension of that evidence, but instead reflect the inconsistency in the evidence as given by the complainant.

[5] The appellant also submits that the verdict is unreasonable. The summary conviction appeal court judge applied the correct test in considering the reasonableness of the verdict and he thoroughly reviewed the evidence. He ultimately determined that the verdict was not unreasonable. We regard this as a close case. Certainly, the Crown’s case was far from overwhelming. However, given the limited scope of a reasonableness review, we accept the summary conviction appeal court judge’s conclusion that the verdict was reasonable.

[6] Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

“Doherty J.A.”

“S. Borins J.A.”

“S.E. Lang J.A.”