WARNING
The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:
An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486(1), (2), or (3) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:
- (1) Any proceedings against an accused shall be held in open court, but the presiding judge or justice may order the exclusion of all or any members of the public from the court room for all or part of the proceedings if the judge or justice is of the opinion that such an order is in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice or is necessary to prevent injury to international relations or national defence or national security.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the “proper administration of justice” includes ensuring that.
(a) the interests of the witnesses under the age of eighteen years are safeguarded in all proceedings; and
(b) justice system participants who are involved in the proceedings are protected.
(3) If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 163.1, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 212, 271, 272 or 273 and the prosecutor or the accused applies for an order under subsection (1), the judge or justice shall, if no such order is made, state, reference to the circumstances of the case, the reason for not making an order. R.S., c. C-34, s. 442; 174-75-76, c. 93, s. 44; 1980-81-82-83, c. 110, s. 74, c. 125, s. 25; R.S.C. 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 14; c. 23 (4th Supp.), s. 1; 1992, c. 21, s. 9; 1993, c. 45, s. 7; 1997, c. 16, s. 6; 1999, c. 25, s. 2; 2001, c. 32, s. 29; 2001, c. 41, s. 16, 34 and 133(13), (14); 2002, c. 13, s. 20; 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, ss. 4 and 8(3)(a).
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: R. v. P.S., 2012 ONCA 624
DATE: 20120920
DOCKET: C52665
Laskin, Juriansz and Tulloch JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
P.S.
Accused/Appellant
Paul Calarco, for the appellant
Eric Siebenmorgen, for the respondent
Heard: September 19, 2012
On appeal from the conviction entered on December 23, 2009 by Justice P. Grossi of the Superior Court of Justice.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant appeals his convictions on charges of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and corrupting morals. He was acquitted of a charge of sexual assault. He appeals on the basis that the trial judge gave inadequate reasons for treating the complainant’s testimony differently across the four charges, and on the basis the verdicts were unreasonable. We are not persuaded by either argument.
[2] We do not agree with the characterization that the trial judge made inconsistent findings relating to the complainant’s testimony. He was clear that he never rejected her evidence. Rather, her testimony did not satisfy him of the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the sexual assault count as it did on the others. The trial judge explained what troubled him on the sexual assault count.
[3] There was ample evidence to support the convictions, so we do not accept the appellant’s contention the verdicts were unreasonable.
[4] The appeal is dismissed.