R. v. M.A.

R. v. M.A. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-03-11 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 190 Docket numbers C65359 Judges Doherty, David H.; Benotto, Mary Lou; Huscroft, Grant Subject Criminal Decision Content WARNING The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file: An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486(1), (1.1), (2), or (3) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide: 486(1) Any proceedings against an accused shall be held in open court, but the presiding judge or justice may, on application of the prosecutor or a witness or own his or her own motion, order the exclusion of all or any members of the public from the court room for all or part of the proceedings, or order that the witness testify behind a screen or other device that would allow the witness not to be seen by members of the public, if the judge or justice is of the opinion that such an order is in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice or is necessary to prevent injury to international relations or national defence or national security. (1.1) The application may be made, during the proceedings, to the presiding judge or justice or, before the proceedings begin, to the judge or the justice who will preside at the proceedings or, if that judge or justice has not yet been determined, to any judge or justice having jurisdiction in the judicial district where the proceedings will take place. (2) In determining whether the order is in the interest of the proper administration of judge, the judge or justice shall consider (a) society’s interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and the participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process; (b) the safeguarding of the interests of witnesses under the age of 18 years in all proceedings; (c) the ability of the witness to give a full and candid account of the acts complained of if the order were not made; (d) whether the witness needs the order for their security or to protect them from intimidation or retaliation; (e) the protection of justice system participants who are involved in the proceedings; (f) whether effective alternatives to the making of the proposed order are available in the circumstances; (g) the salutary and deleterious effects of the proposed order; and (h) any other factor that the judge or justice considers relevant. (3) If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 163.1, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 286.1, 286.2 or 286.3 and the prosecutor or the accused applies for an order under subsection (1), the judge or justice shall, if no such order is made, state, by reference to the circumstances of the case, the reason for not making an order. (4) No adverse inference may be drawn from the fact that an order is, or is not, made under this section. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 486; R.S., 1985, c. 27(1st Supp.), s. 203, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 14, c. 23 (4th Supp.) s. 1; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F), c. 21, s. 9; 1993, c. 45, s.7; 1997, c. 16, s. 6; 1999, c. 25, s. 2(Preamble); 2001, c. 32, s. 29, c. 41, ss. 16, 34, 133; 2002, c. 13, s. 20; 2005, c. 32, c.43, ss. 4,8,; 2010, c.3, s. 4; 2012, c. 1, s. 28; 2014, c. 25, s. 21; 2015, c. 13, s. 13, c. 20, s. 21. WARNING The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file: An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide: 486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (a) any of the following offences; (i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49). (b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a). (2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall (a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. (2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall (a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order. (3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5; 2012, c. 1, s. 29; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22, 48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18. 486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. M.A., 2019 ONCA 190 DATE: 20190307 DOCKET: C65359 Doherty, Benotto and Huscroft JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and M.A. Appellant Sweta Tejpal, for the appellant Rebecca De Filippis, for the respondent Heard: February 28, 2019 On appeal from the conviction entered on April 21, 2017 by Justice Catrina D. Braid of the Superior Court of Justice. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant submits that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by failing to consider whether the complainant’s testimony was the product of “life experiences” and an after-the-fact reconciliation of dreams with actual events. [2] We do not accept this submission. It was put to the trial judge and she carefully considered it. In the end, the trial judge rejected the argument based on her assessment of the reliability of the complainant’s evidence and her finding that the complainant’s evidence had significant support in the rest of the testimony. [3] The appellant also argues that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by considering the potential impact of the “rumours” evidence as part of the argument that the complainant’s alleged memories were, in fact, unreliable. Again, we must disagree. The trial judge, in our view, properly understood that the argument that the evidence that the complainant’s mother had told her about “rumours” of a sexual assault was one of the factors that had led the complainant to come to believe she had been assaulted. The trial judge properly addressed this submission and rejected it. [4] We agree with the Crown that the appellant’s arguments are, in reality, a challenge to the reasonableness of the verdicts. [5] The allegations involved historical sexual assaults that occurred when the complainant was five or six years old. This case turns largely on the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence of the complainant and the appellant and the application of the burden of proof to that assessment. The trial judge gave reasons for accepting the complainant’s evidence. She also gave several cogent reasons for rejecting the appellant’s evidence. The verdicts were not unreasonable. [6] The appeal is dismissed.