Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Brunet, 2011 ONCA 262

DATE: 20110407

DOCKET: C49414

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Moldaver, Simmons and Blair JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

and

Steven John Brunet

Appellant

Counsel: Howard Krongold, for the appellant Benita Wassenaar, for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: April 1, 2011

On appeal from conviction entered by Justice B. Manton of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 6, 2008 and sentence imposed on July 12, 2008.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] Following a thorough review of the evidence, on Counts 1 and 2, the trial judge gave two conclusory reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence and he made no comments at all about the complainant’s evidence. He then went on to consider Count 3 and gave a brief but meaningful explanation as to why he had a reasonable doubt on that count.

[2] In these circumstances, we agree wtih the appellant that the reasons for conviction on Counts 1 and 2 do not adequately perform the function for which they are required, namely, to allow us to review the correctness of the trial decision.

[3] Accordingly the appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered on Counts 1 and 2 and Counts 4 and 5 that are tied to the convictions of Counts 1 and 2.