R. v. Doyle

R. v. Doyle Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-01-31 Docket numbers C41612 Judges McMurtry, Roy; Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Borins, Stephen Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060131 DOCKET: C41612 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – CATHERINE DOYLE (Applicant/Appellant) BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., GOUDGE AND BORINS JJ.A. COUNSEL: Jonathan Dawe for the appellant Jamie Klukach for the respondent HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: January 24, 2006 On appeal from the conviction by Justice James A. Fontana of the Ontario Court of Justice dated December 2, 2003 and from the sentence imposed by Justice James A. Fontana dated April 5, 2004. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant raises a number of arguments about the trial judge’s findings of fact. First, she says that the trial judge erred in either failing to explain the inconsistencies between the evidence of the Crown’s key witness K.D., and much of the defence evidence or in misapprehending that evidence. This argument focuses on the length of confinement of the victim L.B. and when it happened. [2] The trial judge found that the victim was confined at least intermittently, and for varying periods of time, apparently in the fall of 1997. He made clear that he accepted K.D.’s evidence that there was at least some confinement then, and found ample support for this in the victim’s evidence and that of the teachers, principal, and teaching assistant. He did not find the defence evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in this regard. These reasons explain his thought process adequately and in a way that permits our review. He was not required to address every possible piece of conflicting evidence in reaching his conclusion. Nor did he misapprehend K.D.’s evidence. Her view of the length of confinement was not a focus of the defence at trial and her evidence on this issue was not categorical and is not erroneously recited by the trial judge in our view. This ground of appeal fails. [3] Second, the appellant argues that the trial judge applied a higher level of scrutiny to the defence witness J.D. than to the Crown witnesses. We disagree. It was entirely open to the trial judge to reject the former and accept the latter on the basis he did. What the appellant characterizes as minor parts of the testimony of these witnesses that influenced the trial judge’s conclusion are, in our view, precisely the kinds of indicators that it is the business of trial judges to assess when credibility is the central issue. [4] The appellant then challenges the findings on the counts concerning J.D. In our opinion, it was entirely open to the trial judge to make the findings that he did. As the appellant acknowledges, credibility was the central issue the trial judge faced, and his reasons reflect that he dealt with it properly, particularly in light of his findings on the confinement count. [5] Finally, the appellant challenges the findings concerning the failure to provide the necessities of life. However, here as well, there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the charge had been made out. [6] In the end, the appellant’s underlying concern seems to center on the basic view that the Crown’s evidence had to be disbelieved because of its inherent unlikelihood and the contrary evidence. However that debate was exactly what had to be resolved at the trial. It is not our role to retry the case. [7] The appeal must therefore be dismissed. “R. R. McMurtry C.J.O.” “S.T. Goudge J.A.” “S. Borins J.A.”