WARNING
THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
AND IS SUBJECT TO:
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a young person, or any other information related to a young person, if it would identify the young person as a young person dealt with under this Act.
(1) Subject to this section, no person shall publish the name of a child or young person, or any other information related to a child or a young person, if it would identify the child or young person as having been a victim of, or as having appeared as a witness in connection with, an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by a young person.
(1) Every person who contravenes subsection 110(1) (identity of offender not to be published), 111(1) (identity of victim or witness not to be published), 118(1) (no access to records unless authorized) or 128(3) (disposal of R.C.M.P. records) or section 129 (no subsequent disclosure) of this Act, or subsection 38(1) (identity not to be published), (1.12) (no subsequent disclosure), (1.14) (no subsequent disclosure by school) or (1.15) (information to be kept separate), 45(2) (destruction of records) or 46(1) (prohibition against disclosure) of the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
CITATION: R. v. J.V., 2011 ONCA 807
DATE: 20111219
DOCKET: C51292
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MacPherson, Juriansz and Epstein JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
J.V.
Appellant
John F. Silvester, for the appellant
Emile A. Carrington, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: December 14, 2011
On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Ian B. Cowen of the Ontario Court of Justice dated September 3, 2009.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant was convicted of robbery and weapons dangerous arising out of a robbery that took place in a van. In this conviction appeal, he raises three issues.
[2] He submits that (1) the trial judge improperly relied on a statement given to police by his co-accused; (2) the verdicts were unreasonable in that they were not supported by the evidence; and (3) the reasons were inadequate for the purposes of meaningful appellate review.
[3] The respondent concedes that, in convicting the appellant, the trial judge erred in making brief reference to the statement of the co-accused. However, relying on the proviso, he submits that the verdicts would otherwise have been the same. Furthermore, there was ample support in the evidence for these verdicts and the analysis of how the trial judge came to the conclusion that the Crown had made out its case beyond a reasonable doubt, was adequately explained in the reasons.
[4] While it is clear that the trial judge did err in referring as he did to the information contained in the co-accused’s statement, we would not interfere with the verdicts.
[5] In our view, the evidence against the appellant provided by those in the van at the time of the robbery, including that of the complainant, was compelling, as long as the trial judge accepted it. And he did. This evidence, coming from people who were acquainted with the appellant through school, put the appellant in the van as a participant in the victimization of the complainant.
[6] While the specific part of the reasons where the trial judge brings together the evidence relevant to his analysis of whether the Crown had made out its case in relation to the appellant are brief, other parts of the 25-page judgment contain qualitative comments on this evidence. These comments assist in explaining how the trial judge came to reject the appellant’s evidence and find that it did not raise a reasonable doubt and then conclude that the prosecution, on the evidence upon which it relied, had proven the charges against the appellant.
[7] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”
“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”
“G.J. Epstein J.A.”