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or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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.

Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. S.A., 2010 ONCA 750

DATE: 20101105

DOCKET: C49498

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Doherty, Feldman and Gillese JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

S.A.

Appellant

Jody Berkes, for the appellant

Holly Loubert, for the respondent

Heard: November 4, 2010

On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Douglas B. Maund of the Ontario Court of Justice on August 15, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The reasons of the trial judge as a whole reflect a full and proper consideration of the burden of proof, particularly as it applied to the defence explanation for the semen on the young complainant’s shirt.

[2] There was no material misapprehension of the evidence. The only misapprehension related to the location where, according to the appellant’s story, he masturbated before babysitting the complainant. That misapprehension played no role in the trial judge’s analysis that ultimately led to the rejection of the appellant’s evidence. He made it clear that he rejected the appellant’s evidence regardless of where the supposed masturbation occurred.

[3] Nothing in the reasons supports the assertion that the trial judge applied a different standard to the complainant’s evidence than he did to the appellant’s evidence. Clearly, the trial judge decided that the complainant’s evidence was compelling and that the appellant’s evidence was incredible. That was his responsibility.

[4] There was one significant part of the complainant’s version of events that was clearly wrong. The trial judge acknowledged this difficulty, but ultimately accepted the complainant’s evidence. He was entitled to do so and we must defer.

[5] It was open to the trial judge to find that the complainant’s statements to his parents were necessary for a “full and complete account” of the events. The evidence was properly admitted under the “Khan” exception.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.