R. v. Angad, 2010 ONCA 485

CITATION: R. v. Angad, 2010 ONCA 485

DATE: 20100706

DOCKET: C48912

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Moldaver, Simmons and Juriansz JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

And

Chunilall Angad

Appellant

Counsel:

Richard Litkowski, for the appellant

Emile Carrington, for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: June 5, 2010

On appeal from conviction by Justice Colin R. Westman, of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated November 20, 2007.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The trial judge was aware of the frailties in the complainant’s evidence but chose to believe her evidence on the crucial elements of the offences and explained why. In doing so, he did not unduly rely on the complainant’s demeanour but instead carefully examined her testimony and focused on the contents of her evidence. In this regard, he looked for and found several important items of confirmatory evidence that supported the complainant’s version of the events.

[2] This was a case in which the trial judge was uniquely positioned to assess the complaint and in the end, he found that she was guileless and that her testimony was worthy of belief. We see no error in the trial judge’s approach or in his conclusion.

[3] As for the issue of the complainant’s age, it was open for the trial judge to find that Mrs. Poirier’s evidence in-chief was neutralized in cross-examination. Beyond that, on this record, the appellant did not satisfy the test under s. 150.1(5) of the Code.

[4] Finally, the trial judge did not misuse the evidence that the appellant had made sexual overtures to another young girl that evening. The impugned evidence was not general propensity evidence.

[5] Accordingly, the appeal from conviction is dismissed.