Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-02-15 Docket: C62045 Judges: Doherty, Laskin and Roberts JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Matthew Freeland Appellant

Counsel

Eve Thériault, for the appellant

Kevin Rawluk, for the respondent

Hearing and Appeal

Heard: February 14, 2017

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice A.G. Letourneau of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated March 30, 2016.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] The appellant argues that the verdict was unreasonable. We cannot agree. The victim testified that he knew the appellant and recognized his voice. He also recognized a can of bear mace wielded by the robber as having been in the appellant's possession on a previous occasion. The victim also recognized the appellant when he pulled his assailant's mask off during a struggle.

[2] Apart from the victim's evidence, there was other evidence that the robber's first name was "Matt". All of this evidence provided a basis upon which a reasonable trier of fact could convict. The appellant did not testify.

[3] The appellant also argues that the reasons were insufficient. We cannot agree. The reasons demonstrate a firm grasp of the evidentiary record and an appreciation of the crucial issue – the dangers inherent in identification/recognition evidence. The trial judge addressed some of the inconsistencies between the evidence of the victim and two other Crown witnesses. He did not refer to the conversation between the victim and a man named Lloyd. In our view, that evidence had little, if any, impeachment value and the trial judge cannot be faulted for not dealing with the evidence in his reasons.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.