R. v. Khan

R. v. Khan Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-09-22 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 664 Docket numbers COA-23-CR-0922 Judges Rouleau, Paul S.; Huscroft, Grant; Trotter, Gary T. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Khan, 2025 ONCA 664[1] DATE: 20250922 DOCKET: COA-23-CR-0922 Rouleau, Huscroft and Trotter JJ.A. BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Alim Khan Appellant Zachary Al-Khatib, for the appellant Philippe G. Cowle, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: September 16, 2025 On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Sean F. Dunphy of the Superior Court of Justice, on February 10, 2023. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant appeals his convictions for sexual assault and assault. He appeals on the basis that the trial judge’s credibility assessment was flawed in several respects. Specifically, he submits that the trial judge failed to consider the complainant’s motive to fabricate, failed to consider inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, failed to consider evidence of collusion and tainting between the complainant and her daughter, and erred in his assessment of the appellant’s credibility. [2] In our view the trial judge committed no such errors. In his lengthy and comprehensive reasons, the trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence of the appellant and explained why he disbelieved him. He also addressed the evidence of the complainant and her daughter, including the motive to fabricate and the possibility of collusion. He explained why he accepted the testimony of the complainant and that of her daughter who witnessed the assaults. The appellant has not been able to point to an error that would justify interfering with any of the trial judge’s credibility findings. [3] As for the issue of recovered memory, in our view the record does not, as the appellant suggests, make out that the complainant’s gradual disclosure over three attendances at the police station is indicative of recovered memory such that it raised reliability issues. The trial judge accepted the complainant’s explanation for the staggered disclosure and concluded that it did not undermine his confidence in the integrity of that evidence. [4] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “Gary Trotter J.A.” [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.