R. v. Dhami
The appeal was dismissed because the fresh evidence was inadmissible (it added nothing and was obtainable with due diligence) and there was no misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge; the trial judge's credibility findings were upheld.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2016 ONCA 632
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Opneet Dhami
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 18 August 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Court of Appeal Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Fresh Evidence Admissibility, Credibility Findings, Appellate Review, Motive to Deport
- 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
Opneet Dhami
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Court of Appeal Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Admissibility of fresh evidence
- 2 Whether the trial judge misapprehended the evidence
- 3 Assessment of witness credibility
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the fresh evidence was inadmissible (it added nothing and was obtainable with due diligence) and there was no misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge; the trial judge's credibility findings were upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Dhami Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2016-08-18 Neutral citation 2016 ONCA 632 Docket numbers C58707 Judges Doherty, David H.; van Rensburg, Katherine; Roberts, Lois B. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Dhami, 2016 ONCA 632 DATE: 20160817 DOCKET: C58707 Doherty, van Rensburg and Roberts JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Opneet Dhami Appellant Gregory Lafontaine, for the appellant John Neander, for the respondent Heard: August 17, 2016 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice S. Clark of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated October 29, 2013. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The fresh evidence is not admissible. It adds nothing to the effect of the evidence elicited in cross-examination at trial and was available through the exercise of due diligence at trial. [2] We do not agree that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence. He clearly understood that the complainant had gone to the immigration authorities after she went to the police. The trial judge rejected the argument that she was, however, motivated to lie about the allegations to get the appellant deported. On the trial judge’s findings, she wanted the appellant deported because he had used her to get into the country and then abused her once he was in the country. The trial judge found her only “agenda” was to tell the truth. The trial judge explained why he came to that conclusion. We cannot interfere with his finding. [3] The appeal is dismissed.