This week’s top three summaries: R v Hotomanie, 2022 SKCA 119: #probation as severity in sentence, R v Kebede, 2022 ABCA 353: 1st degree from #injuries, and R v BTD, 2022 ONCA 732: uneven scrutiny and #animus.
This week's top case deals with sentencing issues. For great general reference on the law of sentencing, I recommend the Emond title below. It is available for purchase now for our readership with a 10% discount code provided below. To purchase, simply click on image below.
R v Hotomanie, 2022 SKCA 119
[October 20, 2022] Sentencing: Severity of Sentence Increased by Probation [Reasons by Leurer J.A. with Jackson and Caldwell JJ.A. concurring]
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Selling probation instead of incarceration during sentencing can often be an uphill battle from the defence perspective. Very effectively, this case makes the point that probation's rehabilitative effects reduce the long-term danger of an offender to the public. Also, a prison sentence coupled with long probation here was viewed as more restrictive than simply a long-term prison sentence that would have been in line with the jump principle in sentencing. In short, this case is a useful authority to present any time a shorter jail sentence is being pitched to the court by the defence if there is a prospect of participation in probationary programming.
I. Introduction
II. Background
[13] Less than two weeks later, in the early morning hours of February 6, 2021, the File Hills Police Service received a report of a vehicle located in a ditch on Carry the Kettle First Nation. When police located the vehicle, Mr. Hotomanie was found in the front passenger seat. He was charged with breaching a release order, which required him to maintain a curfew at an approved residence from 11:00 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. Carry the Kettle First Nation is nearly an hour’s drive away from his approved residence in Regina.
(a) Relating to the incident on March 8, 2019, for which the Crown proceeded by indictment: impaired driving, dangerous driving, driving while prohibited and breach of probation by consumption of alcohol;
(b) Relating to the incident on January 23, 2021, for which the Crown proceeded summarily: obstruction of a peace officer and driving while prohibited;
(c) Relating to the incident on January 25, 2021, for which the Crown proceeded summarily: refusing a demand to provide a breath sample and breach of a release order by being in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle; and
(d) Relating to the incident on February 6, 2021, for which the Crown proceeded summarily: breach of probation by failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, namely, by being out past his curfew.
III. Sentencing Decision
[17] Having framed his decision in this way, the judge outlined the immediate circumstances of the offences. He then reviewed details of Mr. Hotomanie’s criminal record, which he noted contained “92 entries, and includes 43 convictions for driving offences”. As part of this, he found it to be “of some significance to [his] decision” that Mr. Hotomanie’s “many driving offences” were prior to a conviction for driving while over .08 and driving while disqualified in May of 2005 and driving while disqualified in June of 2009, meaning that Mr. Hotomanie had committed no driving offences after the latter of these dates until those at issue in this appeal (at para 8). Having regard to Mr. Hotomanie’s record, the judge opined that it was “beyond question that if the Court does not apply some reduction of sentence based upon the Gladue factors, a total sentence in the range of 4 to 6 years would be appropriate” (at para 9).
[21] The judge observed that rehabilitative options had not been attempted for Mr. Hotomanie in the past and, instead, harsher penalties were used to emphasize denunciation and deterrence. The judge still found that “a jail sentence of some length” was necessary and would appropriately make the point “that the Court denounces drinking and driving” while also serving to orient Mr. Hotomanie towards rehabilitation (at para 34).
[62] In the face of a sentence that has been obviously and conspicuously developed with s. 718.2(e) in mind, appellate courts must be particularly sceptical of any argument that does not sensitively consider the sentencing judge’s reasons. An appellate court must be especially critical of any argument that could be perceived as asking for a reassessment of the offender’s degree of responsibility as a means of undermining the sentencing judge’s analysis of an offender’s Gladue factors.
B. Did the judge err in his balancing of the objectives of sentencing?
[49] Understood in this way, the Crown’s objection is not that the judge overlooked the protection of the public, but that he sought to achieve this in an unreasonable way. I do not agree.
[50] Case law directs judges to adopt a purposive approach to what constitutes rehabilitation for the purposes of s. 718(d) of the Criminal Code (J.P. at para 61. See also: R v Friesen, 2016 MBCA 50 at para 36, [2016] 11 WWR 255 [Friesen (D.)]; and R v Charlie, 2015 YKCA 3 at para 42, 320 CCC (3d) 479). Properly understood, rehabilitation is not solely targeted towards correcting an offender’s attitude in order to prevent them from reoffending but is also meant to assist the offender in utilizing structured supports that control, modify or manage their behaviour (see: J.P. at para 61; Friesen (D.) at para 36; and R v Keewatin, 2009 SKQB 58 at para 50, 323 Sask R 150). If a judge determines that an offender is open to it, a sentence that includes a rehabilitation initiative is apt to protect the public and is therefore generally more desirable than one that simply segregates the offender from the public for a lengthy period. In this case, the judge determined that the public was best protected by imposing a sentence that combined both a significant period of incarceration and probation conditions that would most likely lead to Mr. Hotomanie’s long-term rehabilitation. [Emphasis by PJM]
[52] In contrast, by the time he was sentenced in this case, Mr. Hotomanie was 55 years old. The judge found, as fact, that Mr. Hotomanie “has made some important and decisive steps towards rehabilitation” (Sentencing Decision at para 33). He noted that Mr. Hotomanie expressed a desire to quit drinking and become an alcohol counsellor himself, and that he was “in a good and supportive relationship” and had developed long-term career goals for himself (at para 32). Mr. Hotomanie had taken responsibility for his actions and did not attempt to blame them upon others. In short, two decades after Hotomanie 1 was decided, the judge found Mr. Hotomanie to be a different kind of offender than the one he had been two decades earlier.
[53] These significant differences in Mr. Hotomanie’s circumstances, and in the assessment of his moral culpability for the present offences, as well as his amenability to rehabilitation, resulted in a different sentence than that applied to him 20 years ago. Ultimately, the judge determined that he should “seize upon those [rehabilitative] steps and attempt to encourage Mr. Hotomanie to continue down that road” (at para 33).
C. Is the sentence demonstrably unfit?
[62] With respect, the Crown’s perception of Mr. Hotomanie’s sentence is mistaken. It is an error to focus solely on the period of incarceration that the judge ordered. While it is true that the custodial sentence is less now than was ordered in Hotomanie 1, the judge combined the total period of incarceration with three-years of probation. The latter is not meaningless, nor are its terms insignificant. Viewed in its entirety, the sanction chosen by the judge is a five-year submission to the state’s supervision, under conditions that significantly restrict Mr. Hotomanie’s activities when he is not in custody, combined with a ten-year driving prohibition. Contrary to the Crown’s characterization, this can be reasonably viewed as a more severe sentence than the one Mr. Hotomanie received in Hotomanie 1. [Emphasis by PJM]
V. Conclusion
R v Kebede, 2022 ABCA 353
[November 4, 2022] First Degree Murder: Planning and Deliberation from Nature of Injuries [Reasons by Martin J.A. with Watson and Crighton JJ.A. concurring]
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Inferring the intent to kill from circumstantial evidence can be very difficult in some cases. It should remain so. This ABCA decision ensured that historical authorities on this point were not displaced. Deliberation for first degree murder must occur "before the act of killing begins." Consequently, the fact that in a beating, blows are administered over a period of time before death actually occurs or in a sequential shooting, there are periods of time between he first shot and the last, these facts do not raise a murder to the status of a planned and deliberate killing. Even where the evidence of intent to kill is "irresistible" from the nature of the injuries, it is not necessarily a straight line from those injuries to planning and deliberation.
The Court:
Background Information
[5] On the evening of July 9th, 2017, Mr. Afowerk left Ms. Gessesse’s residence saying he had to run an errand and would be back in an hour. He left driving his car, a black Chevrolet Cruze. He never returned.
[6] Late that evening, one of Mr. Afowerk’s cousins, Ms. Lackew, received a phone call from a person using Mr. Afowerk’s phone. The caller identified himself as Mr. Afowerk. He asked for $30,000 he said he had left in her house and offered to send someone to pick up the money. When Ms. Lackew replied that there was no money in her house, the caller asked for $1,500 but again was told that she had no money. Although the caller claimed to be Mr. Afowerk, Ms. Lackew did not recognize his voice and did not believe it was him.
[9] Within the hour, Ms. Gessesse received another phone call from Mr. Afowerk, frantically asking about $10,000 that he said had been in his duffel bag but was no longer there. He pleaded with her to look for the money, which she did. When she subsequently communicated to Mr. Afowerk that she couldn’t find any money, he asked her to keep looking.
[10] Ms. Gessesse tried phoning Mr. Afowerk later but got no response. She never heard from him again.
[11] Two days later, Mr. Afowerk’s body was discovered several kilometers west of Calgary, in a ditch by a major highway. He had duct tape around his ankles and neck. Plastic zip ties were found around one wrist. An autopsy disclosed that he had come to a very cruel end; he had been badly beaten and suffered several broken ribs. He had also been strangled and shot three times and then beaten about the head such that his skull was fractured, leaving a part of his brain exposed. The pathologist said it was this latter injury that caused his death.
[12] In July of 2017, Cody Pfeiffer was living a somewhat nomadic life. On July 9th and 10th, he was in frequent communication with Ms. Liao, Mr. Kebede and 2088. On the morning of July 10th, he was with other people including Tiffany Ear and Glynnis Fox in an apartment in southwest Calgary (“the apartment”). At approximately 2:15 AM, Mr. Kebede and Ms. Liao’s phones pinged off towers near Mr. Pfeiffer’s residence. Between 2:58 AM to 3:09 AM, Mr. Pfeiffer, Ms. Liao and Mr. Kebede’s phones pinged off towers some kilometres from the location where Mr. Afowerk’s body was later discovered. Telephone communications suggest Mr. Pfeiffer was subsequently dropped off at the apartment.
[13] Mr. Pfeiffer then called a family member and a friend, looking for help to leave Calgary immediately. Those efforts were unsuccessful. Shortly before 6:00 AM, Mr. Pfeiffer was in the apartment along with Ms. Fox and Ms. Ear. Mr. Kebede was outside. Phone records suggest Ms. Liao was nearby, apparently in another vehicle. At about 6:00 AM, Mr. Pfeiffer, with Ms. Ear and Ms. Fox, left the apartment apparently to meet with Mr. Kebede. There was no evidence as to whether Mr. Woldetekie or 2088 were in the vicinity.
[17] At 7:05 AM, less than an hour after Mr. Pfieffer, Ms. Fox and Ms. Ear left the apartment, firemen discovered their bodies burning inside the Chevrolet Cruze. All were deceased: Ms. Ear had been shot once in the head, Mr. Pfeiffer had been shot seven times, and Ms. Fox had been shot 18 times. Two 9 mm handguns were used in these killings; one of the guns was the same as that used to shoot Mr. Afowerk hours earlier. The Chevrolet Cruze vehicle in which the bodies were found belonged to Mr. Afowerk and was the same vehicle he had driven the night before.
[18] Later that morning, Mr. Kebede, Ms. Liao and Mr. Woldetekie drove the white Jeep Grand Cherokee, which Ms. Liao had rented earlier, to Edmonton to pick up Ms. Liao’s friend, Ms. Litaw. From there, they drove to Saskatchewan. Ms. Litaw testified that when she entered the vehicle it smelled of vomit and was stained with bodily fluids. She saw Mr. Kebede was carrying a handgun at his waist. The group drove to Moose Jaw. The following day, Mr. Woldetekie was dropped off at the Saskatoon Airport where, using Mr. Kebede’s identification, he purchased a ticket to Calgary. He flew from Calgary to Frankfurt, and from there to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, using his own identification.
[25] Neither appellant testified nor called any evidence in their defence.
IV. Whether the Verdicts Were Unreasonable
Whether the Convictions for First-Degree Murder were Unreasonable
[110] As outlined below, Crown counsel had little to say about the killing being planned and deliberate, but stressed that the kidnapping, confinement and extortion was well planned.
[111] Remarkably, after all counsel had delivered their closing addresses, the prosecutor apparently concluded he could not prove an essential element of constructive first-degree murder and asked the trial judge not to leave that option with the jury. The trial judge acquiesced and instructed the jury on planning and deliberation as the only pathway to conviction for first-degree murder.
Whether the Killing was Planned and Deliberate
[113] The evidence established that the confinement and extortion of Mr. Afowerk was well planned, going so far as to rent an autobody shop in off-hours to facilitate the scheme. However, to convict of first-degree murder the Crown had to prove that the killing itself was a planned and deliberate act as that phrase has come to be legally interpreted. In this case the Crown sought to discharge that burden by relying on circumstantial evidence.
[117] The Crown’s contention required the jury to infer the plan was not only to kidnap, confine and extort, but also to kill Mr. Afowerk. There are frailties in this position. As to the suggestion that the injuries sustained must have been inflicted over time and the killing was therefore planned and deliberate, other than the obvious that all the injuries were not inflicted simultaneously, there was no evidence to indicate they were not, or could not, have been inflicted in quick succession. The medical examiner was not asked about this and there was no direct evidence to suggest the killing happened over an extended period.
[118] Furthermore, this assertion of the Crown failed to consider this court’s decision in R v Ruptash (1982), 68 CCC (2d) 182, 36 AR 346, which decided that the deliberation required for murder in the first degree must occur before the act of killing begins. In that case the trial judge was found to have erred in deciding a strangulation killing satisfied the legal requirement of planned and deliberate murder merely because the act of killing required four to five minutes of constant pressure to cause death. To be sure, a trier of fact might be satisfied that the manner of killing, understood in a larger context, is some evidence of planning and deliberation because, for example, the manner of killing (just like post-offence conduct) may correspond to evidence of earlier conduct suggestive of planning: see R v Allen, 2009 ABCA 341 at paras 87-92, 249 C.C.C. (3rd) 296, appeal dismissed 2010 SCC 42, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 648. The crucial point, however, is that the jury was the trier of fact and this line of analysis was not explained to them. It follows that while the nature of the injuries was compelling, indeed irresistible, evidence of intent for murder, it was not a straight line from those injuries to planning and deliberation. [Emphasis by PJM]
[120] Likewise, regarding the Stika, “U up for a job tonight?” text, which was communicated approximately 20 hours before the offence, there was no evidence as to the nature of the “job” in question. Even assuming it was related to this crime, rather than the appellants’ admitted drug trafficking or some other nefarious activity, it is as reasonable to infer that Stika was being recruited only to kidnap, confine and extort, as it is to infer that he was being recruited to kidnap, confine, extort and kill.
[121] In his charge, under this heading the trial judge instructed the jury on the meaning of planning and deliberation and then turned to the position of the Crown:
...The Crown submits that the fact that Mr. Afowerk was found with duct tape around his neck, duct tape around his feet, and zip ties around one wrist, confirms that this was a planned and deliberate murder....
[128] However, the prospect that the plan may have been only to kidnap, confine and extort Mr. Afowerk, and then release him, confident that he would be unable or unwilling to go to the police as the funds extorted from him were the proceeds of crime, but that his killing was unplanned, born of frustration after all the information he gave regarding the location of his money turned out to be false, was never considered. To be clear, that possibility was not raised by trial counsel. We hasten to add that had this alternative been left with the jury, it would be for them to determine whether, on consideration of all the evidence, the proposed alternative was “reasonable enough to raise a doubt” that the killing was planned and deliberate or it was not: R v Dipnarine, 2014 ABCA 328 at para 22; R v Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 at para 56.
[129] In the final analysis, we are concerned that the evidence relied upon by the Crown to support the finding that the killing of Mr. Afowerk was planned and deliberate was equivocal and speculative. The Stika text had more than one plausible meaning. The degree of violence used, while clearly establishing an intent to kill, on the facts of this case was neutral as to planning and deliberation. The jury was not so instructed. Our concern is compounded by those references in the trial judge’s charge to additional evidence mistakenly identified as other evidence the Crown was relying on in proof the killing was planned and deliberate, which the Crown had not relied on, and which was not capable of supporting that inference.
[135] We see no reason to interfere with the convictions for being an accessory to the murders of Mr. Pfeiffer, Ms. Ear, and Ms. Fox.
R v B.T.D., 2022 ONCA 732
[October 28, 2022] Uneven Scrutiny and Evidence of Animus [Reasons by L.B. Roberts J.A. with P. Lauwers and Gary Trotter JJ.A. concurring]
AUTHOR’S NOTE: Despite the SCC's recent admonition in G.F. to not finely parse trial judges' reasons in a search for errors, uneven scrutiny continues to be alive and well as a ground of appeal. Here, along with a litany of other tripwire issues suggesting uneven scrutiny, the trial judge also fell into the trap of treating an absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate as a make weight in favour of the credibility of the complainant. This reverses the onus of proof because an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of motive to fabricate. Here, the trial judge's comments were "“[o]ne of the compelling aspects of [the complainant’s] evidence was the lack of animus directed towards [the appellant] during her testimony. There was not even a hint of vengeance towards [the appellant] in her evidence.” This was found to be no trivial error.
OVERVIEW
[1] The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting the complainant. After meeting on “Tinder”, a dating app, the appellant and the complainant saw each other for approximately two months before their relationship ended in April 2017. On October 28, 2017, the complainant went to the police and accused the appellant of sexually assaulting her on one occasion in mid-March 2017 while they were dating. The appellant denied the charge and maintained that their sexual relations were consensual.
[3] The appellant argues that the trial judge’s approach was materially flawed because of her misapprehension and uneven scrutiny of the evidence, which led to an unfair trial. He also submits that the trial judge erred in treating the complainant’s apparent lack of animus toward the appellant as bolstering her credibility. As a result, her assessment of the evidence, findings and verdict were fatally tainted, and the conviction represents a miscarriage of justice. The appellant asks for a new trial.
....The trial judge’s treatment of the evidence and her conclusions were the product of reversible error and resulted in an unfair trial.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[9] Later that day, starting at around 1:31 p.m., the appellant and the complainant exchanged text messages that both agreed referenced the activities that took place on March 13 and 14, 2017. From about 1:31 to about 4:28 p.m., the appellant and complainant exchanged the following text messages:
The appellant: And I’m sorry I made you late 🙁
The complainant: Yeah, maybe next time when I say stop you could actually stop
The appellant: Are you mad at me
The complainant: I’m not mad, I just said it a few times and you weren’t really listening to me
The complainant: We probably could have eaten breakfast together if you had stopped
The appellant: I’m sorry
The complainant: Thank you for making me dinner and cocktails. I had a really great time
The appellant: 🙂
The appellant: I didn’t want you to leave
The appellant: I wasn’t that impressed with vertigo [1]
The appellant: I mean it was great but his obsession was really starting to get on my nerves
The complainant: I didn’t really want to leave
[10] Between 4:28 and 5:04 p.m., the appellant and the complainant continued to discuss the movie that they had watched the night before. Between 5:04 and 5:25 p.m., they exchanged the following texts:
The appellant: I love it when you’re screaming so loud as your orgasm
The appellant: You*
The complainant: Yeah, I’m kind of loud, I’m sorry
The appellant: It turns me on
The appellant: It makes me want to fuck you as hard as I can
The complainant: In the past people have told me I’m too loud
The appellant: They’re dumb
The appellant: I hate them
[11] The appellant testified that he was referencing the sexual activity of the morning of March 14, 2017. The complainant testified that she understood the appellant was referencing the sexual activity that occurred during the evening of March 13, 2017.
[18] Although indicating in her April 4, 2017 text that she “would love” a trip to the east coast with him, the next day the complainant told the appellant that she didn’t “have any money”; a few days later she said that she “would like to come” but didn’t know if she could. Ultimately, the appellant went on his own. Both testified that the relationship “fad[ed] out” after that.
[19] In the fall of 2017, the appellant and the complainant saw each other’s profile on Tinder. The appellant “super-liked” the complainant. She agreed during her cross-examination that she “liked” the appellant back, which, in Tinder parlance, indicated a willingness to be matched with him. No contact was made between them. The complainant testified that she had “liked” the appellant because she was under the impression that you had to “match” with someone on Tinder to report their sexual misconduct through the platform. The complainant did not end up reporting the appellant to Tinder, which she testified was because she “chickened out”
ISSUES
[22] This appeal raises three issues:
c. Did the trial judge err in treating the complainant’s apparent lack of animus toward the accused as a compelling reason to accept her evidence?
ANALYSIS
(b) Review of the trial judge’s reasons
[27] In my view, the trial judge’s misapprehension of the evidence went to the substance rather than to the detail of her reasons and was material rather than peripheral to her conclusions. Her misapprehension was not simply part of the narrative of her judgment but detrimentally affected the reasoning process that unfairly resulted in the appellant’s conviction.
(i) The appellant’s memory
[28] The appellant submits that the trial judge’s assessment of his evidence was flawed from the start because of her misapprehension of his evidence, which tainted the rest of her analysis and led her to reject his evidence. He highlights the following passage at paragraph 19 from the trial judge’s reasons where she criticizes the appellant’s evidence concerning the sexual activity in issue because of its detailed nature:
Rarely, if ever, have I heard such a detailed accounting of sexual activity. The level of detail provided by [the appellant] was curious juxtaposed to his evidence that his relationship with [the complainant] was nothing more than a casual, short fling. [The appellant] testified that he had relationships before and after [the complainant]. He said he had difficulty even recalling her at the time of his arrest some seven months later. Under those circumstances, I would expect some difficulty remembering specifics. Surprisingly, [the appellant] had no such difficulty.
[29] There are several difficulties evidenced by this paragraph.
[30] In the first sentence of this paragraph, the trial judge appears to apply a generalized standard as to how much detail witnesses should or should not express. This is not the correct approach. The assessment of any witness’s evidence requires a contextual approach based on all of the evidence at trial. Speculation about the level of detail a witness should provide is particularly dangerous when applied to accused persons because it risks shifting the burden of proof from the Crown to the defence and ignores the principles from R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.
[31] Moreover, in R. v. A.K., 2020 ONCA 435, this court warned against drawing a negative credibility inference from an accused’s level of testimonial detail in the absence of independent, contradictory evidence. In this case, none of the detail the appellant provided about the sexual activity in issue was contradicted by independent, contradictory evidence. Only the complainant’s own equally detailed recollection of the events challenged some of the details provided by the appellant. There was also no evidence to suggest any of the detail that the appellant provided about what the trial judge characterized as “the more minor aspects of his time with [the complainant]”, such as walking or playing with his dog and not leaving the complainant alone in his apartment, was inaccurate. As in A.K., the trial judge “simply assumed because the description was detailed, it was fabricated by the appellant in an effort to buttress his credibility”: at para. 26.
[32] The trial judge’s erroneous analytical approach was compounded by her misapprehension of key evidence. She found it surprising that the appellant could recollect what she considered to be a suspect level of detail given her characterization of his evidence that “his relationship with [the complainant] was nothing more than a “casual, short fling” and his difficulty “even recalling her” at the time of his arrest. In the circumstances, she would have expected “some difficulty remembering specifics.”
[33] The trial judge’s analysis reflects material misapprehension of critical evidence given by the appellant. The appellant never testified that he could not recall who the complainant was at the time of his arrest. The police did not initially tell the appellant who his accuser was. The appellant testified that he could not think of who would accuse him of sexual assault in the timeframe the police provided him upon arrest. When he was later told who the complainant was at the police station, he remembered her but could not understand why she would accuse him of sexual assault....
[34] Further, the trial judge’s comment about the “curious” level of detail provided by the appellant in light of the short and casual nature of his relationship with the complainant is based on assumptions about how people should behave and think. Just because their relationship was short and casual did not mean that the appellant could not remember any details about the time spent with the complainant. The trial judge’s assumptions were not supported by the evidence....
[35] The trial judge’s errors are not trivial. They drove and coloured her analysis. Her reasons demonstrate that her suspicion of the appellant’s ability to recall detail about the sexual activity in issue, the key evidence in the case, as well as “even the more minor aspects of his time with [the complainant]”, was one of the fundamental bases for her rejection of the appellant’s “version of events” and why she was “not left in a reasonable doubt by it.”
(ii) Text messages of March 14, 2017
[42] It is clear that the missing texts that the trial judge did not include add an exculpatory aspect to the narrative that the trial judge should have addressed, in particular the following, starting at 4:14 p.m.:
The complainant: Thank you for making me dinner and cocktails. I had a really great time
The appellant: 🙂
The appellant: I didn’t want you to leave
The appellant: I wasn’t that impressed with vertigo
The appellant: I mean it was great but his obsession was really starting to get on my nerves
The complainant: I didn’t really want to leave
[44] These missing texts were very important to the text message narrative and in understanding the appellant and the complainant’s relations. They represented the appellant and the complainant’s last exchange on March 14, 2017 about the events that took place that morning. On their face, they belied the complainant’s later allegations of sexual assault. The trial judge’s truncation of the text messages resulted in a serious distortion of the evidence that she should have considered in its entirety.
[49] The trial judge rejected the position asserted by defence counsel at trial that the complainant “was holding out by not providing all the text messages up front.” The trial judge exonerated the complainant, finding that “[t]he retrieval of the text messages was the responsibility of the police or possibly the Crown but certainly not [the complainant].” She added that it was not for the complainant “to decide what was relevant or helpful for the purposes of a criminal trial.”
(2) Uneven scrutiny of the evidence
[52] The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in subjecting the defence evidence to more rigorous scrutiny than Crown evidence.
[53] In my view, the appellant has succeeded in demonstrating that the trial judge showed a tolerant and relaxed degree of scrutiny of the complainant’s evidence, as compared to the harsh lens that she trained on the appellant’s evidence. This rendered the trial unfair.
(a) Standard of review
[54] Uneven scrutiny as a ground of appeal is “notoriously difficult to prove”, as the Supreme Court recently observed in R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, 459 D.L.R. (4th) 375, at para. 99. 2
[55] To make out this ground of appeal, an appellant must identify something clear in the trial judge’s reasons or the record indicating that a different standard of scrutiny was applied, as well as something sufficiently significant, such as rejecting the appellant’s testimony for speculative reasons, to displace the deference due to a trial judge’s credibility assessments: R. v. Gravesande, 2015 ONCA 774, 128 O.R. (3d) 111, at para. 19. Uneven scrutiny may be another way of expressing that the trial judge erred in principle in some manner in making an assessment of credibility: R. v. Greif, 2021 BCCA 187, 406 C.C.C. (3d) 39, at para. 82, leave to appeal refused, [2021] S.C.C.A. No. 182.
(b) Review of the trial judge’s reasons
[57] In my view, the appellant has demonstrated that the trial judge applied a much harsher lens to his evidence than to the complainant’s. The following examples suffice to make this point, some of which I have already discussed under the misapprehension of evidence ground.
(i) Level of testimonial detail
[58] As earlier indicated, the trial judge found the appellant’s account of the sexual activity suspect because of its detail and applied speculative assumptions about how witnesses should give their evidence. She had no such difficulty with the complainant’s equally detailed account of the sexual activity.
[61] The difficulty here is not that the trial judge rejected the appellant’s account of the sexual activity and accepted the complainant’s version. The error is the clear uneven scrutiny: the trial judge criticized the appellant’s evidence as contrived because of its detail but accepted the exact same level of detail in the complainant’s version as a mark of credibility and reliability, without explaining why she drew this distinction based on the same factor.
(ii) Uneven characterization of the evidence
[62] .....Moreover, she relied on minor matters to reject the appellant’s credibility and reliability, concluding that “[b]eing committed to unreasonable positions on peripheral events was a consistent theme in [the appellant’s] evidence that, in [her] view, impinged on his credibility and reliability” and that as she listened to his evidence, “once he was committed to a particular narrative he was prepared to stick to it no matter how nonsensical his responses became.” Respectfully, the record does not support those conclusions.
[63] The trial judge started with three minor examples that were entirely irrelevant to the charge. First, the appellant testified that he never went on a walk with his dog and the complainant although he did testify that he walked the dog with her to wait for her Uber pickup. Second, he never showed her the dog’s tricks. Third, he never left the complainant alone in his apartment, not even to take the dog out.
[65] The trial judge also seized on the appellant’s evidence about the proposed trip out east. She ignored the text messages the complainant sent the appellant on April 4, 2017 and April 12, 2017 indicating that she would “love to go to Newfoundland”, and that she would “really like to go” on the trip but did not know if she could; instead, the trial judge accepted the complainant’s contradictory evidence that she had no intention of going on a trip with the appellant, and stated she “was not sure what to make of [the appellant’s] evidence.” She found it “curious” that the appellant felt a real sense of frustration and disappointment that the complainant did not give him a definitive answer because there was nothing in their communications “that would warrant the type of frustrated response that [the appellant] testified about.” As a result, she found this to be “yet another internal inconsistency in [the appellant’s] evidence albeit collateral to the facts in issue.”
[67] The only explanation for the trial judge’s conclusions is that she did not view the appellant’s evidence with fairness. Rather, her approach constantly required the appellant to explain himself. This reversed the burden that lay squarely with the Crown.
[68] Moreover, the trial judge’s assessment of the appellant’s evidence contains assumptions about how the appellant should have behaved, including how often he should have walked his dog, and how he should have given his evidence. As already discussed, it is an error for a trial judge to make a negative credibility finding based on stereotypical assumptions or generalizations that are not supported by the evidence: R. v. Roth, 2020 BCCA 240, 66 C.R. (7th) 107, at para. 64; MacIsaac, at para. 46; Morrissey, at pp. 530-31.
[69] In stark contrast to her treatment of the appellant’s evidence, the trial judge tolerated and failed to analyze serious discrepancies in the complainant’s evidence. I refer to the following salient examples.
[70] The trial judge’s unexplained selective excerpting of the March 14, 2017 text exchange between the appellant and the complainant is an important example of the trial judge’s uneven scrutiny of the evidence. The excerpt favoured the complainant’s version of events to the detriment of the appellant. The trial judge’s failure to analyze the potentially exculpatory passages that she omitted from her consideration resulted in an entirely one-sided perspective that contravened her obligation to look at the evidence in its entirety through the lens of the W. (D.) principles.
[71] While a trial judge is not obliged to give all the reasons that led her to the conclusion that an accused is guilty, it is well established, as the Supreme Court instructed in Ungaro v. The King , [1950] S.C.R. 430, at p. 432, that “[i]t is imperative, however, that [the trial judge] should give a decision upon all the points raised by the defence which might be of a nature to bring about the acquittal of the accused.” [Emphasis by PJM]
[75] The trial judge rejected the appellant’s evidence that the March 20, 2017 text exchange referenced part of the sexual activity that took place the morning of March 14, 2017 and accepted the complainant’s testimony that it was about a different time. She concluded “for reasons that follow, that if [the complainant] had performed fellatio on [the appellant] that morning, she would have admitted it” and that she was “not prepared to rely upon [the appellant’s] memory of events” (emphasis added). But the reasons did not follow. Instead, the trial judge went on to assess unrelated portions of the complainant’s evidence without ever explaining her conclusion that the complainant would have admitted to performing fellatio on the appellant on March 14, 2017 if she had.
[76] This was an error. While it was open to the trial judge to accept the complainant’s evidence and reject the appellant’s “memory of events”, the trial judge was required to explain her reasons for doing so with respect to a critical piece of evidence, especially as she indicated that she would do so. Absent her reasons, her conclusory statement that the complainant would have admitted to performing fellatio is inadequate and evidences a tendency to accept the complainant’s evidence at face value without meaningful scrutiny.
[77] I turn next to the trial judge’s uneven assessment of the appellant’s and complainant’s credibility and reliability in relation to collateral matters. In contrast to the trial judge’s rejection of the appellant’s evidence because of trivial inconsistencies that she found arose from minor events, the trial judge ignored inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, including between her trial testimony and admitted text message exchanges with the appellant. A significant example concerns text messages from March 24 and 25, 2017, which appear to contradict the complainant’s evidence that she stayed overnight with the appellant on March 28, 2017, having sandwiches the next day, and which support the appellant’s evidence that they had sandwiches together on March 24 and not March 29, 2017, and that the appellant did not stay overnight on March 28, 2017. The trial judge did not address the March 24 and 25, 2017 text messages. Rather than grappling with the apparent inconsistency between the contemporaneous record provided by these text messages and the complainant’s account at trial, the trial judge wrote that she “[didn’t] know if [the complainant] stayed over at [the appellant’s] place on March 28, 2017 or another night after the incident of March 14, 2017”, and that she “accept[ed] that she believes she did” and that “[t]he fact that there is no confirmation in the form of a text message is of no moment.”
[79] The trial judge never critically addressed the considerable weaknesses in the complainant’s evidence, nor did she meaningfully consider evidence that corroborated the appellant’s account of relevant events. Had the trial judge applied as exacting a standard of scrutiny to the complainant’s testimony as she imposed on the appellant, she might well have been left with a reasonable doubt: R. v. Kiss, 2018 ONCA 184, at para. 86. Failing to conduct a critical assessment of testimonial weaknesses that could undermine the Crown’s evidentiary foundation on an essential element of the offence can be indicative of uneven scrutiny: Roth, at para. 142. In my view, that is what occurred here.
(3) Apparent lack of animus
[80] The appellant contends that the trial judge erroneously relied on the complainant’s apparent lack of animus as a compelling reason for accepting the complainant’s testimony. I agree that the trial judge’s reasons on this issue reveal error.
[81] In support of her acceptance of the complainant’s evidence “in its entirety”, the trial judge found that “[o]ne of the compelling aspects of [the complainant’s] evidence was the lack of animus directed towards [the appellant] during her testimony. There was not even a hint of vengeance towards [the appellant] in her evidence.” [Emphasis by PJM]
[82] As this court recently instructed in R. v. G.B., 2021 ONCA 675, at para. 18, “trial judges must approach an apparent lack of motive to fabricate with great caution when assessing the credibility of a complainant.” This caution arises out of the well-established distinction between an absence of evidence of a motive to fabricate on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a proven absence of a motive to fabricate. While the proven absence of motive might give affirmative weight to a witness’s testimony in a trial judge’s credibility assessment, the absence of any evidence of a motive to fabricate is a neutral factor and cannot be used to enhance a witness’s credibility. This is because the fact that a complainant has no apparent motive to fabricate does not mean that a complainant has no motive to fabricate. Reasoning from the apparent absence of a motive to fabricate undermines the presumption of innocence by reversing the burden of proof and fails to recognize that motives to mislead can be hidden. See: R. v. Gerrard, 2022 SCC 13, 468 D.L.R. (4th) 389, at paras. 4-5, R. v. L.L., 2009 ONCA 413, 96 O.R. (3d) 412, at para. 44; R. v. Bartholomew, 2019 ONCA 377, 375 C.C.C. (3d) 534, at paras. 22-23; R. v. S.H., 2020 ONCA 34, at para. 11; R. v. A.S., 2020 ONCA 229, at para. 59.
[83] In the present case, it was not argued nor did the trial judge find that there was a proven absence of a motive to fabricate on the part of the complainant. Rather, the trial judge appears to reference the lack of evidence of any apparent motive based on her observation that the complainant did not demonstrate “a hint of vengeance” toward the appellant in her testimony.
[84] By this, the trial judge fell into the reasoning error that the absence of any appearance of animus or motive equated to the absence of motive. She erred by using the absence of any evidence of motive as a makeweight in her assessment of the complainant’s credibility.
[85] This was not a trivial error. I do not accept the Crown’s argument that in instructing herself “not to place much emphasis” on the complainant’s demeanour, the trial judge properly restricted the weight she afforded to the complainant’s apparent lack of animus.
[88] Second, even if the trial judge had properly instructed herself on demeanour evidence, her reasons reveal that she in fact placed significant weight on the complainant’s apparent lack of animus. This observation was the culmination of her analysis of the complainant’s evidence and immediately preceded her conclusion that for this and the other reasons she gave, the trial judge accepted the complainant’s evidence in its entirety. The trial judge clearly used this factor to enhance the complainant’s credibility and it was one of the key building blocks in her acceptance of the complainant’s evidence.
DISPOSITION
[89] While credibility and reliability findings are the province of the trial judge and attract a very high degree of deference on appellate review, this does not mean that an appellate court can abdicate its responsibility for reviewing the record to see if a trial judge’s assessment of the evidence is materially flawed and resulted in an unfair trial. The question is whether the trial judge took a balanced approach to the process by which she arrived at her credibility findings, not whether she rightly accepted the complainant’s version of events.
[90] I am mindful that appellate courts should not finely parse the trial judge’s reasons in a line-by-line search for errors but must read them as a whole, in the context of the evidence, the issues and the arguments at trial: G.F., at para. 69; R. v. Chung, 2020 SCC 8, 443 D.L.R. (4th) 393, at para. 13. In this case, when read as a whole, the trial judge’s reasons reveal that her assessment of the evidence was not balanced and her analytical errors, in their cumulative effect, detrimentally impacted her reasoning process throughout and her decision, rendering the conviction unsafe. Appellate intervention is therefore required.
[91] For these reasons, I would set aside the conviction and order a new trial. “PDL”