



COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION:
R. v.
    Ho, 2012 ONCA 623

DATE: 20120919

DOCKET: C53667

Doherty, Hoy and Pepall JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Boun Yong Ho

Appellant

Mark Halfyard, for the appellant

Amber Pashuk, for the respondent

Heard:  September 18, 2012

On appeal from the conviction entered on February 17,
    2011 by Justice Molloy of the Superior Court of Justice.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1]

The parties agree that the trial judge misapprehended a piece of
    evidence.  We need not detail that misapprehension as, in our view, it was not
    material.

[2]

The essence of the trial judges reasons are set out at pp. 416-17:


...The evidence of Mr. Joo supports the logical inference that
      the secret compartment was regarded by both men as a means of passing things
      back and forth between them in connection with their illegal drug trade.  Even
      if I accept Mr. Joos evidence that Mr. Ho did not know he had put the drugs in
      the car, he had Mr. Hos consent to use the compartment for this and other illegal
      purposes.  In doing so, Mr. Ho became a party to Mr. Joos possession.  Mr. Joo
      placed the drugs there for their mutual benefit as part of a joint enterprise
      to traffic in drugs.


[3]

In our view, the findings are supported by the evidence and not affected
    by the single factual error made by the trial judge.

[4]

We need not address the arguments based on the alternative grounds on
    which the trial judge found liability.

[5]

The appeal is dismissed.


