an explanation to police] and to use that finding in assessing the
appellant’s overall credibility”. However, the trial judge was not
entitled to go further as he did in that case and use the appellant’s silence as a basis for finding her incredible: see para. 7. See,
also, R. v. Duong,  O.J. No. 2266, 2014 ONCA 375, 311
C.C.C. (3d) 139, at para. 54, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused
 S.C.C.A. No. 268. I am of the view that reading her reasons
as a whole, the trial judge in this case undertook only the former,
permissible line of reasoning.
 Moreover, the trial judge was entitled to rely on the internal inconsistencies in Mr. Ahmad’s testimony to reject his evidence. She held that in the context of his testimony, his claim that
he lied to the police made no sense. On a fair reading of her reasons, that holding did not reflect a factual finding that he did in
fact lie to police as he said he did.
(d) Sentence appeal
 Mr. Ahmad also argues that his sentence of imprisonment
for two years less one day for the possession for the purpose of
trafficking charge concurrent with six months’ imprisonment for
each of the two possession of proceeds of crime charges was manifestly unfit.
 Mr. Ahmad submits that the trial judge erred in principle
by double-counting his youth record in considering both the record and the fact that his time spent in custody as a result of his
youth offences had not deterred him from engaging in subsequent
serious criminal activity. She also erred by erroneously considering his failure to provide information for the pre-sentence report
as an aggravating factor, even though he was not obligated to do
so. Moreover, she placed too little emphasis on rehabilitation,
including the fact that he had complied with his bail conditions
for several years and obtained a university degree. Finally, she did
not consider whether his bail conditions, including spending five
months under house arrest and a further seven on a curfew,
should have mitigated the sentence. As a result, Mr. Ahmad
submits that the trial judge imposed a sentence that is harsh and
excessive and that a fit sentence is one of 18 months, to be served
in the community.
 I would not interfere with the sentence imposed by the
trial judge. Although the trial judge failed to consider Mr. Ahmad’s
time under house arrest and erroneously considered his failure to
provide information for his pre-sentence report, in my view, the
sentence imposed is nonetheless fit.