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. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:

486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences;

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49).

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order.

(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5; 2012, c. 1, s. 29; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22, 48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18.

486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. C.C., 2020 ONCA 583

DATE: 20200915

DOCKET: C66488

Paciocco, Nordheimer and Thorburn JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

C.C.

Appellant

Jessica Zita, for the appellant

Natalya Odorico, for the respondent

Heard: September 11, 2020 by videoconference

On appeal from the convictions imposed by Justice Thomas Carey of the Superior Court of Justice on July 27, 2018.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] C.C. appeals his conviction for sexual assault and sexual touching regarding his step-daughter. At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal for reasons to follow. We now provide our reasons.

[2] The appellant asserts that the trial judge erred in finding a neighbour’s evidence as corroborative; overemphasized certain post offense conduct; erred in evaluating the credibility of the complainant and the accused, and in treating the case as a credibility contest; and that his verdicts, that is his acquittal on a second sexual touching count, were inconsistent.

[3] We are not persuaded that any of these asserted errors are made out in this case. This was a credibility case. The complainant said that the appellant had engaged in improper conduct towards her. The appellant denied that he had so acted. The trial judge accepted the evidence proferred by the prosecution, including that of the complainant, her mother and a neighbour, and rejected the evidence of the appellant. The trial judge also found that the appellant’s evidence did not give rise to a reasonable doubt. He gave his reasons for those conclusions.

[4] The appellant has not demonstrated any palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s credibility conclusions. In particular, the trial judge correctly found that the neighbour’s evidence as to what the appellant said about the accusations tended to provide independent support for the complainant’s assertions that the appellant had engaged in the asserted conduct.

[5] Further, the acquittal on the second sexual touching count is not inconsistent. That count related to a particularized form of sexual touching that was not supported by the implied admissions the trial judge found the appellant to have made to the complainant’s mother and to the neighbour. The doubt in relation to this sexual misconduct does not preclude the trial judge from accepting the complainant’s evidence regarding the other incidents, especially in light of the admissions the trial judge found the appellant to have made.

[6] It is for these reasons that we dismiss the appeal.

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”

“J.A. Thorburn J.A.”