R. v. Ajise, 2018 ONCA 494
[23] First, Maraj is properly characterized by the Crown as a fact witness, called to explain how she had assembled and summarized a large volume of documentary evidence relating to the income tax returns filed by the appellant. It was only at the end of her evidence in chief, when Exhibit 12 was introduced, that she was asked to explain why she believed all the charitable claims filed by the appellant’s clients were false. When asked that question, she simply explained what the records showed. Maraj was doing nothing more than explaining her sources and her methodology in a way that would allow the jury to understand and to assess the numbers on Exhibit 12. The lists from Eto’s computer, the list on the appellant’s computer, and the compilation derived from the cancelled cheques demonstrated that a very large number of the appellant’s clients had submitted substantial claims for charitable donations to Tractors representing a disproportionate part of their income. The records showed that the appellant had been directly paid 10 to 15% of the amounts claimed by way of donation and that Tractors had reported receipt of virtually no charitable donations. While the total of the itemized, client by client lists of Tractors donations was less than the total showed by C.C.R.A. records for all returns filed by the appellant, Maraj testified that they were close enough to lead her to believe that all the charitable claims the appellant filed were false, which is why she included them in the “false donation” column on Exhibit 12. While it might have been preferable had Maraj not been asked to formulate her summary of the evidence she found in terms of her belief, and had the trial judge not referred to her opinion in his instructions, it remains that Maraj’s evidence was essentially factual in nature. It was entirely proper for her to explain to the jury the nature of the calculations she had made and the source data she used to compile Exhibit 12, which was an admissible demonstrative aid designed to summarize the properly admitted evidence and “to assist the jury in understanding the entire picture presented by voluminous documentary evidence”: R v. Scheel (1979), 1978 CanLII 2414 (ON CA), 42 C.C.C. (2d) 31, at p. 34 (Ont. C.A.); Kon Construction Ltd. v. Terranova Developments Ltd., 2015 ABCA 249, 20 Alta L.R. (6th) 85, at para. 46. As with the summaries in Scheel, the usefulness of Exhibit 12 “depended entirely…upon the acceptance by the jury of the proof of the facts upon which [it was] based”: Scheel, at p. 34 . The jury was in a position to assess for itself the worth of Maraj’s explanation for her calculations as they did not rest on or draw its force from any specialized or technical skill or knowledge: see R. v. Hamilton, 2011 ONCA 399, 271 C.C.C. (3d) 208, at para. 277.
[24] Maraj explained how she had compiled the spreadsheets and what her background sources were. Maraj’s calculations were explained and her reasons for labelling the donations “false” were fully explored by defence counsel and exposed in a way that could be assessed by the jury as a matter of logic and common sense. Even if not every dollar of the $5,023,456 shown on Exhibit 12 was nailed down as being a Tractors’ donation, it was open to a trier of fact to infer that false claims comprised a significant portion of that total. The background sources were available for the jury’s consideration. In her closing address, Crown counsel encouraged the jury to consider those sources. The trial judge also referred to the background sources in reviewing the evidence during his charge to the jury. The jury was also instructed that they could accept all, some or none of the evidence.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire