Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Joseph, 2010 ONCA 134

DATE: 20100219

DOCKET: C48903

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Moldaver, Cronk and Armstrong JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

And

Joseph Thayakran Joseph Appellant

Counsel: Anil K. Kapoor and Lindsay L. Daviau for the appellant Holly Loubert for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: February 19, 2010 On appeal from conviction by Justice Faye McWatt of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 29, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] Despite Mr. Kapoor’s able argument, we are not persuaded that the trial judge made any errors that would warrant a new trial.

[2] The issue with respect to the phone records is essentially fact driven. The trial judge found the evidence relating to the records given by the phone company witness was unreliable and could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result.

[3] In our view, it was open to the trial judge to make those findings and we see no basis for interfering with them.

[4] With respect to the count of assault involving N.R., we are not persuaded that the trial judge erred in her assessment of N.R.’s credibility. The trial judge recognized the inconsistency between this complainant’s evidence and the police officer’s notes made shortly after the event. She addressed this inconsistency directly and in the end, having regard to the whole of the evidence, she accepted this complainant’s version of the events. Again, we see no basis to interfere.

[5] The remaining grounds of appeal set out in the appellant’s factum do not provide a basis for reversal of any of the convictions.

[6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.