Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Peric, 2011 ONCA 514

DATE: 20110712

DOCKET: C46345

BEFORE: Rosenberg, Cronk and Watt JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

and

Milos Peric

Appellant

COUNSEL:

Milos Peric, in person

John McInnes, for the respondent

HEARD AND RELEASED ORALLY: June 29, 2011

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Robert G. S. Del Frate of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 1, 2006.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Mr. Peric has raised a number of grounds of appeal. We are satisfied that none of those grounds of appeal argued orally can succeed nor is there any merit to any of the other grounds of appeal raised in his factum. We will deal with only some of the issues raised.

[2] The appellant’s principal submission before this court was that the evidence as to the condition of the brake system was fabricated. To bolster this submission, the appellant took us to certain of the exhibits, especially the photographs that he claims were doctored or show that evidence was fabricated. The evidence not only does not show what the appellant claims but, more importantly, the trial judge dealt directly with these allegations (see his reasons at pp. 29-35) and explained why he rejected them. His reasons for so doing are supported by the record and are reasonable.

[3] The appellant also submitted that the prosecution should not have adduced evidence of prior audits because this was improper similar fact evidence. We disagree. This evidence was admissible to demonstrate a pattern of conduct and rebut the allegations of fabrication. Moreover, the appellant not only did not object to the admissibility of this evidence, he urged the trial judge to admit it when the trial judge questioned its admissibility.

[4] Finally, the appellant submitted that some of the evidence of the MTO investigation should have been excluded because it was improperly obtained to further the criminal investigation. However, this was relevant evidence and the appellant did not bring a Charter application to attempt to exclude it even though the trial judge invited him to do so. This issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Similar reasoning applies to the appellant’s objection to the general warrant.

[5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Signed: "M Rosenberg J.A."

"E. A. Cronk J.A."

"David Watt J.A."