Vauclair, Healy, Baudouin

Appeal from convictions.  Dismissed.

The appellant was found guilty of sexual offences against three minors, committed between 2009 and 2013, when the three victims were between 8 and 15 years old. He alleges, first, that the trial judge erred in not assessing his testimony in light of all the evidence, and second, that she applied uneven scrutiny in her assessment of the evidence.

With respect to the first ground, the judge’s reasons are sufficient because one can readily understand her decision and why that decision was made. The fact that the trial judge did not set out each of her findings is not a demonstration that, in arriving at her decision, she completely disregarded the rest of the evidence. Moreover, the appellant’s argument that the judge failed to properly consider the core elements of his defence rests on the weight to be given to the evidence, not on a palpable and overriding error.

As for the second ground of appeal, the appellant has not demonstrated a qualitative discrepancy in the standards of assessment applied by the trial judge to the testimony of prosecution and defence witnesses in this case. She could give weight to the audio recording of a conversation with one of the victims, a recording the appellant had the opportunity to comment on and even explain. The trial judge could also assess a partial text message conversation and find that it had little probative value.

In his additional reasons, Healy, J.A., although he agrees with the reasons of Vauclair, J.A., considered the difference between the questions that must be answered to bring an appeal against conviction and the questions that must be answered for an appeal to succeed. A court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal only if it meets one of the criteria listed in section 675(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46) (Cr. C.). An appeal can then only succeed if there is an unreasonable verdict, an error of law, or a miscarriage of justice, as set out in section 686(1)(a) Cr. C. It is not possible to ascertain from the appellant’s case either the grounds upon which the appeal is brought or the reason for which he seeks relief against the findings of guilt by the trial judge.

Text of the decision: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca