R. v. Jaworski

R. v. Jaworski Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2013-03-28 Neutral citation 2013 ONCA 183 Docket numbers C54374 Judges Sharpe, Robert J.; Watt, David; Hoy, Alexandra 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. 486.4(1), (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or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (a) any of the following offences: (i) an offence under section 151, 152,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, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347, (ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or (iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or (b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii). (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 complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, 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). 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. Jaworski, 2013 ONCA 183 DATE: 20130325 DOCKET: C54374 Sharpe, Watt and Hoy JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Mathew Jaworski Appellant Gregory Lafontaine, for the appellant Roger Shallow, for the respondent Heard: March 22, 2013 On appeal from the conviction entered on March 21, 2011 and the sentence imposed on September 28, 2011 by Justice Wendy L. MacPherson of the Superior Court of Justice. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We are not persuaded that the trial judge failed to apply the W.D. test. She recited the W.D. test setting out all three stages. Although she made no further explicit reference to step 2, she did state, at pg. 71, “just because I do not believe [the appellant], that’s not the end of the inquiry as the onus remains on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these offences occurred”. She concluded at the end of her reasons, that “after considering the evidence of the accused” and the other evidence that the Crown had proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. [2] When we factor in the acquittal of the appellant on the count involving the other complaint and the finding that the Crown had not proved sexual intercourse in relation to this complaint and when we read these reasons as a whole, we are satisfied that the trial judge did not err in the manner alleged by the appellant. [3] We see no error in the sentence imposed that would justify appellate intervention. [4] Accordingly, the conviction appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence granted and appeal dismissed.