W A R N I N G
The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:
An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2)
of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:
486.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347,
(ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or
(iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).
(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b).
486.6 (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15.
CITATION: R. v. Thompson, 2009 ONCA 894
DATE: 20091215
DOCKET: C50250
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Goudge, Rouleau and Watt JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Stephen Jerome Thompson
Appellant
Alan D. Gold and Vanessa Arsenault, for the appellant
Deborah Calderwood, for the respondent
Heard: December 9, 2009
On appeal from the conviction entered on February 9, 2009 by Justice Margaret P. Eberhard of the Superior Court of Justice.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] Although not raised in his factum, the appellant first argues the inadequacy of the trial judge’s reasons. In our view, the reasons are sufficient for appellate review and clearly indicate the route taken to conviction by the trial judge. This argument fails.
[2] The appellant then argues the inadequacy of the evidence available to support the finding of lack of consent. In our opinion, the trial judge made clear the evidence she accepted in reaching that conclusion. That evidence amply supports her finding, and it was open to her to accept it.
[3] Thirdly, the appellant points to inconsistencies in the evidence called by the Crown and argues that this undermines the ultimate conclusion of the trial judge. We disagree. The trial judge addressed the principal inconsistencies and was cautious as to the evidence she accepted. We see no error in the way she approached this aspect of the trial. It is not necessary for a trial judge to deal with every inconsistency in the evidence, however minor.
[4] Finally, the appellant challenges the trial judge’s finding that the appellant was in a position of trust. However, the trial judge applied the correct legal test. Moreover, there was more than enough evidence to support her conclusion that the test was met in this case.
[5] The appeal from conviction is dismissed.