Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 20241204 Docket: C69778
Rouleau, George and Gomery JJ.A.
Parties
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King Respondent
and
Henry Garbrah Appellant
Counsel: Henry Garbrah, acting in person Angela Ruffo, appearing as duty counsel Evan Akriotis, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: December 2, 2024
On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice David Maylor of the Ontario Court of Justice on May 20, 2021.
Reasons for Decision
[1] The appellant was convicted of three counts of assault, two counts of assault with a weapon, two counts of unlawful confinement, one count of uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, and two counts of breaching the terms of a release order. He was acquitted of obstructing justice and of one count of uttering a threat.
[2] The appellant argues that the trial judge’s reasons are insufficient as they do not permit meaningful appellate review. The trial judge, relying on discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony, dismissed the obstruction count. With respect to the remaining counts, the trial judge, who self-instructed on W.(D.), concluded that “the complainant presented her evidence in a candid and straightforward manner about the accused’s violent behaviour. Her credibility and reliability did not suffer when cross-examined about the details of the violent incidents.”
[3] The appellant did not testify.
[4] Appellate review of reasons for decision must be done functionally and contextually. The core question in determining whether a trial judge’s reasons are sufficient is whether the reasons, read in context, explain why the judge decided as they did: R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, [2021] 1 S.C.R. 801, at para. 69.
[5] We can discern from the trial judge’s reasons why he decided as he did. With respect to the obstruction count, the trial judge pointed to the discrepancies in the complainant’s evidence and to her longstanding position of not wanting to proceed with the matter in court, which led him to find the appellant not guilty. And with respect to the allegations of assault, he found the complainant to be candid and reliable.
[6] This conclusion was open to the trial judge, who could accept, all, some or none of the complainant’s evidence.
[7] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.
“Paul Rouleau J.A.”
“J. George J.A.”
“S. Gomery J.A.”