COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: R. v. Ho, 2012 ONCA 623
DATE: 20120919
DOCKET: C53667
Doherty, Hoy and Pepall JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Boun Yong Ho
Appellant
Mark Halfyard, for the appellant
Amber Pashuk, for the respondent
Heard: September 18, 2012
On appeal from the conviction entered on February 17, 2011 by Justice Molloy of the Superior Court of Justice.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] The parties agree that the trial judge misapprehended a piece of evidence. We need not detail that misapprehension as, in our view, it was not material.
[2] The essence of the trial judge’s reasons are set out at pp. 416-17:
...The evidence of Mr. Joo supports the logical inference that the secret compartment was regarded by both men as a means of passing things back and forth between them in connection with their illegal drug trade. Even if I accept Mr. Joo’s evidence that Mr. Ho did not know he had put the drugs in the car, he had Mr. Ho’s consent to use the compartment for this and other illegal purposes. In doing so, Mr. Ho became a party to Mr. Joo’s possession. Mr. Joo placed the drugs there for their mutual benefit as part of a joint enterprise to traffic in drugs….
[3] In our view, the findings are supported by the evidence and not affected by the single factual error made by the trial judge.
[4] We need not address the arguments based on the alternative grounds on which the trial judge found liability.
[5] The appeal is dismissed.