Summary

37167

Olabode Abayolmi Olotu v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (As of Right)

Keywords

Criminal law.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)

Criminal law - Sexual assault causing bodily harm - Whether the trial judge misapprehended evidence by making findings of fact and inferences unsupported by the evidence and whether that misapprehension resulted in a miscarriage of justice pursuant to s. 686(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - Whether the trial judge’s ultimate conclusion was illogical or irrational and therefore unreasonable within the meaning of s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm. At trial, he admitted that he engaged in anal intercourse with the complainant and claimed that she had consented. The complainant had no independent memory of the incident because she was intoxicated, but claimed she would never have consented to anal intercourse. The trial judge did not believe the appellant because he lied to police and because his explanations as to how the complainant received the bruises on her body were preposterous. Rather, the trial judge believed the complainant and found that she did not consent to anal intercourse because of the bruising and the bodily harm she suffered which, in his view, were inconsistent with consensual sex. He also found that her account of the incident and what followed was credible and consistent. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal. Ryan-Froslie J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. In her view, the trial judge misapprehended medical evidence and evidence pertaining to the complainant’s bruising, made findings of fact and inferences which were unsupported by the evidence and arrived at inconsistent conclusions as to the basis for the appellant’s conviction.