COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Harrison, 2012 ONCA 667

DATE: 20121002

DOCKET: C54370

Sharpe, Gillese and Watt JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Michael Harrison

Appellant

Stephanie Heyens, for the appellant

Lisa Csele and Nick Devlin, for the respondent

Heard: October 1, 2012

On appeal from the conviction and the sentence imposed on May 10, 2011 by Justice Bruce Young of the Ontario Court of Justice.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant submits with respect to both conviction and entrapment that the trial judge’s findings were unreasonable, that he misapprehended material evidence and that his reasons were inadequate.

[2] We disagree.

[3] Following a conversation in which coded language commonly used in drug deals was used, the appellant met the undercover officer as agreed. No transaction was consummated but there was clearly evidence to support the trial judge’s finding that the appellant agreed to sell the officer heroin.

[4] We do not accept the submission that the trial judge’s failure to explain why the appellant’s behaviour after he got into the car and the fact that the appellant was not in possession of drugs when arrested is fatal to the conviction. The trial judge explicitly found that the appellant was not credible and specifically rejected the appellant’s description of what happened at the relevant time.

[5] Perhaps the trial judge could have said more but, given the nature of the issues posed, the reasons are adequate to explain to the appellant and to this court why he was convicted.

[6] In our view, the decision of this court in R. v. Imoro, [2010] ONCA 122, aff’d 2010 SCC 50, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 62 is fatal to the appellant’s argument on entrapment. As in Imoro, there was an initial call that can properly be characterized as investigatory, followed by a face to face meeting where, on the finding of the trial judge, conduct amounting to trafficking occurred, namely, the appellant agreed to the complete drug deal discussed on the telephone.

[7] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.