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:

486. (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. R.L., 2013 ONCA 358

DATE: 20130531

DOCKET: C54981

Laskin, Goudge and Watt JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

R.L.

Appellant

Alan S. Price, for the appellant

Michael Medeiros, for the respondent

Heard: May 29, 2013

On appeal from the conviction entered on April 14, 2011 and the sentence imposed on January 25, 2012 by Justice Sharon M. Nicklas of the Ontario Court of Justice.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant was convicted of four counts of sexual abuse and was sentence to 30 months in prison. He appeals both his conviction and his sentence.

[2] On his conviction appeal, the appellant challenges the conviction on count 9, the conviction for sexual assault. He submits that the trial judge failed to reconcile inconsistence in the evidence of the incident giving rise to this conviction. He argues that the evidence of the complainant is not only inconsistent with the appellant’s evidence, it is inconsistent with that of the appellant’s son, Brandon, and with the email from the complainant’s mother. The appellant submits that the trial judge’s error on count 9 colours the remainder of her credibility findings.

[3] We do not accept this submission. The trial judge was alive to the alleged inconsistencies – see page 89 of her reasons. As the Crown points out, there is no inconsistency between Brandon’s remark having been made and the incident having taken place. Therefore, we see no error in the trial judge’s reasons convicting the appellant on count 9.

[4] The sentence of 30 months imprisonment is well within an acceptable range for an offence of this nature.

[5] Accordingly, both the conviction and sentence appeal are dismissed.