Reasons for Judgment — Abella J. (LeBel, Rothstein, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ. concurring)
Abella J. — The critical issue at trial was whether Mr. Vokurka intentionally inflicted the victim’s injuries. The majority in the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge’s findings of fact, inferences drawn from those facts, and the finding of guilt were reasonable.
The dissenting judge was of the view that the trial judge erred in failing to adequately consider and explain why, in her view, the “equally plausible explanation” supporting the defence of accident was not accepted. We do not agree, and agree instead with the majority that the trial judge adequately explained why he rejected the possibility of accident and found that the charge was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge set out the evidence of the victim’s statements, a doctor’s expert evidence about the nature of the wound, and the victim’s reaction to being cut, all of which led him clearly to the view that there was no “equally plausible explanation” for the cutting. He reviewed the relevant evidence and set out his reasons for concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the injuries were intentionally inflicted. His inferences were reasonably supported by the evidence. Like the majority in the Court of Appeal, we see no error on his approach. It was not open to the dissenting judge, with respect, to reweigh the evidence by substituting her own view of it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.