Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Dhillo, 2011 ONCA 63

DATE: 20110121

DOCKET: C50669

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

BEFORE: Rosenberg, Goudge and Armstrong JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Pappu Dhillo

Appellant

COUNSEL: Vincenzo Rondinelli, for the appellant Emile Carrington, for the respondent

HEARD AND RELEASED ORALLY: January 17, 2011

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice J. Daley of the Superior Court of Justice on February 3, 2009.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant raises two grounds of appeal. The first is that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence as to when the appellant knew the complainant was alleging he had assaulted her. The transcript is somewhat confusing but the trial judge had the advantage, which we do not, of having seen the witness and we cannot say that the trial judge’s interpretation of the appellant’s evidence on this point is unreasonable. In any event, this was just one of some six reasons the trial judge gave for rejecting the appellant’s evidence and was not essential to the finding of guilt.

[2] The second ground of appeal concerns the trial judge’s failure to deal with all of the evidence touching on the recent fabrication issue. However, the trial judge primarily relied upon the evidence of the social worker. She was an independent witness whose evidence on this issue was absolutely clear and conclusively established that the complainant had complained at least about the most serious assault well before the divorce papers were served.

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

"M. Rosenberg J.A."

"S.T. Goudge J.A."

"Robert P. Armstrong J.A."