Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-10-11 Docket: C65284

Judges: Simmons, Rouleau and Huscroft JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

G.M. Appellant

Counsel

Jonathan Dawe, as duty counsel G.M., appearing in person Grace Choi, for the respondent

Heard: October 2, 2018

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] On behalf of the appellant, duty counsel raises three issues going to the correctness and adequacy of the trial judge's reasons.

[2] First, he argues that the trial judge relied improperly on evidence of a prior consistent statement made by the complainant to a former friend to corroborate the complainant's evidence. We reject this submission. In our view, the trial judge did not rely improperly on any evidence adduced of a prior consistent statement. Read in the context of the submissions at trial, we are satisfied that the trial judge's statement that the evidence of the complainant was corroborated by the evidence of her friend referred to other aspects of the friend's testimony, such as the complainant's demeanour and conduct after the events at issue. Further, the trial judge's earlier finding that the complainant's statement to her friend was for the most part consistent with the complainant's trial evidence was a response to defence arguments that her friend's testimony undermined the complainant's trial evidence based on inconsistencies.

[3] Second, the appellant submits that the trial judge failed to adequately explain why he accepted the evidence of the complainant despite inconsistencies and other issues in her evidence raised by the defence. We reject this submission. Although given in short compass, the trial judge's reasons are responsive to defence arguments. For example, he explained why he found the complainant credible and attributed other deficiencies in her evidence to the passage of time.

[4] Third, the appellant submits that the complainant's evidence that the appellant talked about getting "his boys to come down" was insufficient to constitute a threat. We reject this argument. Based on the context in which the words were said, it was open to the trial judge to find that a threat to cause bodily harm had been made.

[5] Speaking on his own behalf, the appellant argued the trial judge's reasons did not adequately explain why he accepted the complainant's evidence. We reject this argument for the reasons we have given.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.