R. v. White
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's credibility conclusions were supported by sufficient reasons (notably timing and contextual factors) and, even assuming a Charter breach, it was properly characterized as minor such that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C42205
- Parties
- Appellant: GARFIELD WHITE; Respondent: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 March 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Credibility and Demeanour, Search and Seizure, Charter S.24(2), Admission 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
GARFIELD WHITE
Appellant
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Credibility of the appellant's evidence
- 2 Whether the trial judge misapprehended the evidence
- 3 Whether a Charter breach occurred and if so whether evidence should be excluded under s.24(2)
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's credibility conclusions were supported by sufficient reasons (notably timing and contextual factors) and, even assuming a Charter breach, it was properly characterized as minor such that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. White Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-03-21 Docket numbers C42205 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Borins, Stephen; Lang, Susan Elizabeth Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060307 DOCKET: C42205 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – GARFIELD WHITE (Appellant) BEFORE: ROSENBERG, BORINS and LANG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Mark Halfyard for the appellant Steve Coroza for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: March 6, 2006 On appeal from conviction by Justice Tamarin Dunnet of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 10, 2004 and sentence imposed July 30, 2004. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] While we do not necessarily agree with all of the trial judge’s reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence, in particular, her reliance on the appellant’s admission that he did not know Daley’s real name, the other reasons she gave, especially on the issue of timing, were cogent and in context are a sufficient basis to find that the appellant’s story about how he came to the garage, why he was there and what he was doing before the police arrived were not credible. This was a crucial aspect of the appellant’s story. [2] We are satisfied that the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence and that her reasons were sufficient given the various issues before her. [3] As to the s. 24(2) issue, in our view, assuming the trial judge was right to find a Charter breach, it was properly characterized as minor and admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. [4] Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.