Tanner Jay Morrow v. Her Majesty the Queen
(Alberta) (Criminal) (As of Right)
(Publication ban in case)
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
|2021-06-09||Transcript received, 47 pages|
|2021-05-19||Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties|
|2021-05-19||Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties|
|2021-05-19||General proceeding, (Letter Form), Case sensitivity questionnaire, (Printed version due on 2021-05-27)||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2021-05-19||General proceeding, (Letter Form), Case Sensitivity Questionnaire, (Printed version due on 2021-05-27)||Tanner Jay Morrow|
|2021-05-19||Judgment on the appeal rendered, Mo Ka Côt Row Kas, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Alberta (Calgary), Number 1901-0174-A, 2020 ABCA 407, dated November 19, 2020, was heard on May 19, 2021, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally:
MOLDAVER J. (Karakatsanis, Rowe and Kasirer JJ. concurring) — A majority of the Court is of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal at paras. 16 and 17 of its judgment. As the majority observed, the record clearly supports the inference drawn by the trial judge that Mr. Morrow’s conduct represented an attempt to dissuade the complainant, by corrupt means, from giving evidence. Mr. Morrow knew he had recently been charged with criminal harassment and that he was bound not to contact the complainant. Despite this, he attended her home uninvited and engaged her in a prolonged and distressing discussion about the process for withdrawing the charges and her reasons for bringing them. The complainant testified that the exchange made her feel “[p]ressured to please” Mr. Morrow and to get him out of the house (A.R., vol. II, at p. 30). Shortly thereafter, Mr. Morrow sexually assaulted her, which served to exacerbate her concerns. On the basis of this evidence, it was open for the trial judge to find that Mr. Morrow’s intention was to apply pressure on the complainant and ultimately to manipulate her into dropping the charges against him. The fact that Mr. Morrow may have also been motivated by a desire to rekindle his relationship with the complainant did not undermine the availability of this finding.
There was also evidence that contradicted Mr. Morrow’s position that he was simply responding to a request for information. The complainant made no such request to Mr. Morrow and she did not expect, nor was she interested in, the information he provided.
In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that survivors of domestic abuse are particularly vulnerable to acts of intimidation and manipulation, the trial judge’s verdict was reasonable. There is no basis for appellate intervention.
CÔTÉ J. — The wording of the charge required evidence that the appellant attempted to dissuade the complainant “by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence” (A.R., vol. I, at p. 2). There is no such evidence here. The appellant’s behaviour cannot, in this case, be characterized as a “corrupt means” within the meaning of s. 139(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Appealing to or preying on affection are means of persuasion just like appealing to or preying on reason. Nothing in the circumstances of this case makes these means of persuasion “corrupt”. The trial judge erred in finding otherwise. His reliance on R. v. Crazyboy, 2011 ABPC 369, was inapposite for two reasons. First, no finding of “corrupt means” was made in that case, as the wording of the charge did not require any. Second, Mr. Crazyboy attempted to manipulate the complainant and incited her to adopt an illegal behaviour by fleeing from her home so that she would not be brought before the court to give evidence. Here, the appellant merely provided information as to the process for withdrawing charges. Like Slatter J.A., I am of the view that the conviction for attempting to obstruct justice is not made out on this record, and that the conviction is unreasonable. I would therefore allow the appeal and enter a verdict of acquittal.
|2021-05-19||Hearing of the appeal, 2021-05-19, Mo Ka Côt Row Kas
|2021-05-17||Certificate (on limitations to public access), Form 23B for the Respondent's condensed book||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2021-05-17||Respondent's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-05-17)||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2021-05-17||Certificate (on limitations to public access), Form 23B for Appellant's condensed book||Tanner Jay Morrow|
|2021-05-17||Appellant's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-05-17)||Tanner Jay Morrow|
|2021-04-23||Notice of appearance, Andrew Barg will appear before the court, and will present oral arguments.||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2021-04-22||Notice of appearance, Markham Silver Q.C., and Andrea L. Serink will appear before the court. Mr. Silver and Ms. Serink will both present oral arguments.||Tanner Jay Morrow|
|2021-04-12||Certificate (on limitations to public access), Form 23B - Factum, Record, Authorities||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2021-04-12||Certificate (on limitations to public access), Form 23A||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2021-04-12||Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), Form 24B||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2021-04-12||Respondent's book of authorities, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-04-14, (Printed version filed on 2021-04-13)||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2021-04-12||Respondent's record, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-04-14, (Printed version filed on 2021-04-13)||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2021-04-12||Respondent's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-04-14, (Printed version filed on 2021-04-13)||Her Majesty the Queen|
|2021-02-18||Notice of hearing sent to parties|
|2021-02-18||Appeal hearing scheduled, 2021-05-19
|2021-02-16||Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-02-16)||Tanner Jay Morrow|
|2021-02-16||Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), 23B-Appellant's factum/Record, (Printed version filed on 2021-02-16)||Tanner Jay Morrow|
|2021-02-16||Appellant's record, (Book Form), (2 volumes), Completed on: 2021-02-19, (Printed version filed on 2021-02-16)||Tanner Jay Morrow|
|2021-02-16||Appellant's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-02-19, (Printed version filed on 2021-02-16)||Tanner Jay Morrow|
|2021-02-02||Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Notice of appeal – As of right), by email on 2021-02-03|
|2020-12-16||Letter acknowledging receipt of a notice of appeal, FILE OPENED 12/16/20|
|2020-12-11||Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), 23B||Tanner Jay Morrow|
|2020-12-11||Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), 23A||Tanner Jay Morrow|
|2020-12-11||Notice of appeal, (Letter Form), Completed on: 2020-12-11||Tanner Jay Morrow|
- Date modified: