Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. A.C., 2009 ONCA 667

DATE: 20090922

DOCKET: C49646

Goudge, Armstrong and Blair JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

A.C.

Appellant

Counsel:

Catriona Verner, for the appellant

Bradley J. Greenshields, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: August 21, 2009

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Julia Morneau of the Ontario Court of Justice on June 29, 2007.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals his conviction for sexual assault on two grounds: (1) the trial judge rejected the appellant’s evidence simply because she believed the evidence of the complainant, and (2) in the alternative, the reasons of the trial judge do not meet the test of the Supreme Court of Canada as articulated in R. v. Sheppard.

[2] While the reasons of the trial judge do not specifically expressly articulate the basis for rejecting the appellant’s evidence, a fair reading of the entire reasons indicates that the trial judge did not simply accept the testimony of the complainant and therefore reject the evidence of the appellant. She said that she considered the whole of the evidence and, in particular, the emotional state of the complainant as testified to by the police officer and as revealed by the audiotape of the 911 emergency call. This evidence was entirely supportive of the complainant’s version of events and inconsistent with the appellant’s version that nothing happened that night in the motel room.

[3] While it would have been preferable for the trial judge to expressly articulate the above, we are of the view that the reasons read as a whole reveal the basis for the decision.

[4] The appeal is therefore dismissed.

“S. Goudge J.A.”

“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”

“R.A. Blair J.A.”