Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2023-06-08 Docket: C66235

Judges: van Rensburg, Benotto and Copeland JJ.A.

Between:

His Majesty the King Respondent

and

Mario Inacio Appellant

Counsel: Mario Inacio, acting in person Richard Litkowski, appearing as duty counsel Kristen Pollock, for the respondent

Heard: June 6, 2023

On appeal from: The conviction entered on November 5, 2018, by Justice Katherine B. Corrick of the Superior Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. These are our reasons.

[2] The appellant was convicted of robbery, unlawful confinement, assault, threatening death and extortion. The charges arose out of dispute about a $400 rent payment.

[3] The appellant had been staying in a bedroom in an apartment rented by the complainants, Ms. Campeau and Mr. Hyson. Everyone in the apartment used drugs. When the complainants told the appellant that they were going to move out of the apartment, the appellant became enraged and demanded the complainants return $400 he claimed to have given the landlord.

[4] The complainants testified that the appellant threatened them with a meat cleaver, took Mr. Hyson’s bank card and tried unsuccessfully to withdraw money from his account. The next day, he told Mr. Hyson to go to the bank because if he did not get his money he was going to “slice and dice” them with the meat cleaver. Mr. Hyson was able to withdraw the money. He gave it to “Samantha”, a friend of the appellant. During this time, Ms. Campeau said she could not leave the apartment because she feared she would be killed before she got to the front door.

[5] The judge accepted the evidence of Ms. Campeau. The appellant did not testify.

[6] He appeals the convictions on the basis that the trial judge did not adequately assess the reliability of Ms. Campeau’s evidence. Ms. Campeau, an admitted drug user, acknowledged that she had problems with her memory. Her testimony was three years after the events.

[7] We see no error in the trial judge’s approach to reliability.

[8] The trial judge instructed herself accurately on the law. She was alive to Ms. Campeau’s drug use and its effect on her memory. She nonetheless accepted Ms. Campeau’s evidence that the appellant threatened her and Mr. Hyson with a meat cleaver if he did not get his $400 back and prevented her from leaving the apartment. The trial judge recognized that there were gaps in the evidence and, to the extent that there were inconsistencies between Mr. Hyson’s evidence and Ms. Campeau’s, she preferred the evidence of Ms. Campeau. This was her call to make.

[9] The appeal is dismissed.

Signatures:

“K. van Rensburg J.A.” “M.L. Benotto J.A.” “J. Copeland J.A.”