Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Mamitko, 2013 ONCA 649

Date: 20131028

Docket: C52631

Before: Goudge, Cronk and MacFarland JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Oleksander Mamitko

Appellant

Counsel:

Raj Napal, for the appellant

Mabel Lai, for the respondent

Heard: October 28, 2013

On appeal from the conviction entered on April 19, 2010 by Justice David Aston of the Superior Court of Justice, without a jury.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant raises two issues in this court.

[2] First, he says that this is an unreasonable verdict. We do not agree. There was ample evidence on which the trial judge could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant altered the gas meter, and that beyond a reasonable doubt the only other people who could have done so did not. The trial judge’s reasons made it very clear that in coming to this conclusion, he rejected the appellant’s exculpatory explanation.

[3] Second, the appellant argues that Enbridge’s conduct following the appellant’s tampering with the gas meter, breaks the chain of causation between that conduct and the explosion. Again we disagree. There can be no question that the appellant’s tampering with the gas meter was a substantial cause contributing to the ultimate explosion. That is what is required for causation in this criminal context.

[4] The appellant abandoned his theft argument in this court.

[5] And finally we do not view the fresh evidence as material. Neither the declaration of Mr. Prenco nor the cheques would have affected the reasoning or conclusions of the trial judge.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.