R. v. Alexander
The trial judge's reasons were inadequate and conclusory on the central credibility issue; the judge failed to properly scrutinize the Crown's main witness, misapprehended material evidence about the alleged exchange, and drew an adverse inference from a neutral fact (Gainor issue); accordingly the conviction was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C40979
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Paul Alexander
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 October 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- Credibility of Witnesses, Adequacy of Reasons, New Trial, Conviction Quashed
- 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
Paul Alexander
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether trial judge provided adequate reasons for conviction
- 2 Whether trial judge properly assessed the credibility of the Crown's main witness Lacourcière
- 3 Whether the trial judge misapprehended evidence about an alleged exchange concerning steel and gun barrels
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's reasons were inadequate and conclusory on the central credibility issue; the judge failed to properly scrutinize the Crown's main witness, misapprehended material evidence about the alleged exchange, and drew an adverse inference from a neutral fact (Gainor issue); accordingly the conviction was unsafe and the appeal is allowed with a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Conviction quashed
- New trial ordered
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Alexander Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-10-12 Docket numbers C40979 Judges Labrosse, Jean-Marc; Sharpe, Robert J.; Gillese, Eileen E. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20051012 DOCKET: C40979 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) –and– PAUL ALEXANDER (Appellant) BEFORE: LABROSSE, SHARPE and GILLESE JJ.A. COUNSEL: Brian H. Greenspan and Peter Copeland for the appellant Grace Choi for the respondent HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: October 11, 2005 On appeal from the judgment of Harry Keenan J. of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 25, 2003, made in Barrie, Ontario. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The reasons in this case do not satisfy the requirement to provide adequate reasons for the conviction of the accused. The reasons are conclusory on the only issue in this case, namely the credibility of two witnesses. [2] The Crown’s case defended entirely on the unconfirmed evidence of its main witness, one Lacourcière. [3] In our view, the trial judge failed to properly scrutinize the evidence of Lacourcière, particularly, his criminal record, his involvement with illegal firearms and the outstanding charges he was facing. We note that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence that what took place with respect to the steel and the gun barrels had been an exchange. That was not the Crown’s case and is not supported by the evidence. [4] More importantly, the trial judge took what he expressly found to be a neutral fact, namely the Gainor issue, and drew from it an adverse inference against the credibility of the appellant. [5] The appeal is allowed, the conviction is quashed, and we order a new trial.