Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-10-21 Docket: COA-23-CR-0887

Judges: Trotter, Wilson and Pomerance JJ.A.

Between

His Majesty the King Respondent

and

B.D.C. Appellant

Counsel

Jassi Vamadevan, for the appellant

Eunwoo Lee, for the respondent

Heard and rendered orally: October 20, 2025

On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Sosna of the Superior Court of Justice, on February 9, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant challenges his convictions for assault with a weapon and sexual assault against his wife. He alleges that the trial judge erred by reversing the onus of proof, by failing to adequately explain his credibility findings, by engaging in propensity reasoning, and by improperly applying the rule in Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.).

[2] We see no basis for intervention.

[3] The trial judge accepted the complainant's testimony about the incident giving rise to the charges, which included use of a hammer to assault her while in a garage. Of particular significance was a conversation between the complainant and appellant after the event which was recorded by the complainant and introduced at trial.

[4] During that conversation the appellant was heard to assert that he always used a hammer and pliers. It was open to the trial judge to infer from this statement that the appellant used a hammer during his assault of the complainant and that the recording confirmed this aspect of the complainant's testimony. We see no error in this approach.

[5] Nor do we agree that the use of this evidence amounted to propensity reasoning. The trial judge expressly found that the reference to a hammer and pliers was not a general statement, but rather, a specific admission as it related to the charges before the court.

[6] As it relates to the rule in Browne v. Dunn, the reasons disclose that this did not play a prominent role in the trial judge's analysis. The fact is that various details offered by the appellant in his testimony had not been put to the complainant in cross-examination.

[7] The arguments of the appellant amount to an attempt to revisit the credibility assessments of the trial judge. The trial judge explained his findings by setting out numerous reasons for rejecting the appellant's testimony and finding that it did not raise a reasonable doubt. His acceptance of the complainant's testimony as confirmed by the recording, was a proper basis on which to find the appellant guilty of the offences.

[8] Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal.

"Gary Trotter J.A."

"D.A. Wilson J.A."

"R. Pomerance J.A."

Publication Ban

[1] This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.