R. v. Iskierko
The 1989 incident could not reasonably support the inference that the appellant had a sexual inclination toward the complainant in 1989, much less in 1996; because the trial judge's finding that it did was central to his decision, the verdict was unreasonable and must be quashed, warranting a new trial despite the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C34383
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Michael Iskierko
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 24 September 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal Decision)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; verdict quashed; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Assault, Propensity/character Evidence, Reasonableness of Verdict, Appellate Review Under S.686(1)(a)(i), New Trial
- 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
Michael Iskierko
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal Decision)
Legal Issues
- 1 Admissibility and probative value of prior incident evidence
- 2 Whether an incident seven years earlier could support an inference of sexual inclination at time of alleged offence
- 3 Standard of appellate review of verdicts under s.686(1)(a)(i)
Ratio Decidendi
The 1989 incident could not reasonably support the inference that the appellant had a sexual inclination toward the complainant in 1989, much less in 1996; because the trial judge's finding that it did was central to his decision, the verdict was unreasonable and must be quashed, warranting a new trial despite the general deference owed to trial credibility findings under s.686(1)(a)(i).
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; verdict quashed; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Verdict quashed
- New trial ordered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Iskierko Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2001-09-24 Docket numbers C34383 Judges Doherty, David H.; Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Cronk, Eleanore Ann Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20010924 DOCKET: C34383 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. MICHAEL ISKIERKO (Appellant) BEFORE: DOHERTY, GOUDGE and CRONK JJ.A. COUNSEL: Steven Kovacs for the appellant Joan Barrett for the respondent HEARD: September 20, 2001 On appeal from the conviction imposed by Justice Hawkins on March 27, 2000 and the sentence imposed on May 10, 2000. ENDORSEMENT [1] Even if the evidence of the incident at the 1989 Christmas party, some seven years before the alleged assault, could be admitted as part of the narrative, it could not reasonably support the inference that the appellant had a “sexual inclination” toward the complainant in 1989, much less seven years later in 1996. The trial judge’s finding that this evidence supported a “sexual inclination” toward the complainant was central to his decision that the appellant committed the sexual assault. The verdict cannot stand. [2] The appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable. Our jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of a verdict is described in s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code. The jurisdiction does not permit a de novo assessment of the evidence and demands strong deference to the trial judge’s credibility assessment. Nor can that jurisdiction be exercised because the reasons are regarded as “inadequate”. Applying the principles applicable to that jurisdiction, we cannot say that this verdict is unreasonable. A trier of fact acting reasonably could have accepted the evidence of the complainant and convicted the appellant. [3] In the result, the appeal is allowed, the verdict is quashed and a new trial is ordered. “Doherty J.A.” “S.T. Goudge J.A.” “Cronk EA, J.A.”