COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Beckford, 2014 ONCA 66

DATE: 20140124

DOCKET: C54940

Feldman, MacFarland and Pepall JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Dwight Lloyd Beckford

Appellant

Joseph Di Luca, for the appellant

Amy Alyea, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: January 16, 2014

On appeal from the ruling of Justice Nancy M. Mossip dated July 20, 2010 and from the conviction entered on February 25, 2011 by Justice Bruce Durno of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The motion judge accepted the affiant police officer’s evidence. While we may have decided that issue differently, she was alive to the difficulties with the officer’s evidence and in spite of them accepted it.

[2] In our view, this informant was not an anonymous tipster. He or she was known to the police. The affiant officer had met with him or her. His or her information was firsthand. He or she knew the appellant and knew that he kept guns in the home he shared with his father and grandmother. He or she had seen the guns on a number of occasions and knew that the appellant had outstanding drug charges, a fact confirmed by the affiant before swearing the ITO. Certainly the ITO could and should have been drafted more carefully. There should have been no mention of a criminal record. The appellant did not have one.

[3] The other information from CPIC was properly included although the manner of its inclusion was somewhat problematic. That information was imprecise and this affiant could not speak to how the Toronto Police Service put information up on CPIC. However, in all the circumstances, this error would not tip the balance.

[4] As to the request for a judicial summary, the appellant does not challenge the motion judge’s decision to refuse cross-examination on the issue of compensation. Accordingly we see no error in the motion judge’s refusal to provide a judicial summary in circumstances where very few people would have had the information this confidential informant had and his or her identity could be readily discerned.

[5] In all the circumstances, it was open to the motion judge to make the finding she did. There is no error of law; there is no misapprehension of evidence; and she did not fail to consider material evidence. In this court deference is owed to her decision and we would not interfere with it.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”

“S.E. Pepall J.A.”