Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Larmond, 2013 ONCA 150
Date: 2013-03-12
Docket: C54922

Before: Rosenberg, Juriansz and Epstein JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent)

and

Michael Larmond (Appellant)

Counsel:
Delmar M. Doucette, for the appellant
J. Sandy Tse, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: March 7, 2013

On appeal from the conviction entered on October 18, 2011 by Justice Edward P. Belobaba of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury.

Endorsement

[1] We agree that the trial judge was not required to give his opinion as to the strength of the evidence, but as the trial judge and the parties interpreted the question, it could be answered by pointing to the critical evidence in the case, without expressing an opinion.

[2] Whether a question has been adequately answered depends on the context. An important contextual factor in this case was that the trial judge had not reviewed the evidence in his charge. Since after a day of deliberation the jury was having difficulty with appreciating the significant parts of the evidence, the trial judge should have at least identified those parts of the evidence, such as the critical importance of McCallum’s original identification and Simmonds’ identification evidence.

[3] This was not a strong Crown case, and we have not been persuaded that this error did not result in a reversible error. This is not a safe case to apply the proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii).

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the conviction set aside and a new trial ordered.

"M. Rosenberg J.A."
"R.G. Juriansz J.A."
"Gloria Epstein J.A."