R. v. Kandil
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge properly applied the W.D. test, considered all the evidence, accepted the evidence of Detective Clifford as honest, made reliable factual findings and therefore did not err in concluding the appellant's evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C36149
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Elsayeed Kandil
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 18 June 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- W.d. Test, Reasonable Doubt, Credibility of Witnesses, Segregation of Evidence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Elsayeed Kandil
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in applying the third step of the W.D. test when rejecting the appellant's evidence
- 2 Whether the trial judge failed to fully assess and reconcile the evidence of the police officers
- 3 Whether the appellant's evidence raised a reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge properly applied the W.D. test, considered all the evidence, accepted the evidence of Detective Clifford as honest, made reliable factual findings and therefore did not err in concluding the appellant's evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Conviction upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Kandil Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2002-06-18 Docket numbers C36149 Judges Catzman, Marvin Adrian; Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20020618 DOCKET: C36149 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – ELSAYEED KANDIL (Appellant) BEFORE: CATZMAN, WEILER AND FELDMAN JJ.A. COUNSEL: Graham T. Clark For the appellant Susan Magotiaux For the respondent HEARD: June 13, 2002 RELEASED ORALLY: June 13, 2002 On appeal from the conviction imposed by Justice William Bassel dated March 9, 1999. ENDORSEMENT [1] At the opening of the appeal, counsel abandoned the ground regarding the failure to segregate the evidence as related to the different counts. Counsel proceeded with the ground that the trial judge, having rejected the appellant’s evidence completely, failed to fully assess and reconcile the evidence of the police officers in applying the third step of W.D. and in so doing concluded that the appellant’s evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt. [2] The trial judge gave full reasons wherein he specifically dealt with his obligation to apply W.D. and articulated how he did apply it. Although he did not in detail review and reconcile the evidence of the officers on the dangerous driving charge, his reasons make it clear that he considered all of the evidence and accepted the evidence of Detective Clifford as honest. He went on to make findings of fact based on that evidence and clearly found it reliable as well. [3] The trial judge’s reasons disclose no error. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Signed: "M.A. Catzman J.A." "K. M. Weiler J.A." "K. Feldman J.A."