Case information

None.

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.

Criminal law - Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Whether it is open to an appellate court to interfere with a verdict reached by a trial judge on the basis that the trial judge’s reasons are not sufficient where it cannot be demonstrated, on the trial judge’s reasons, that a palpable and overriding error was made which renders the verdict wrong and the trial judge’s reasons, read in their entirety, show that the trial judge: knew what the legal issues to be resolved were and was aware of the law on those issues; knew and understood the evidentiary basis on which her or his decision must be based; knew and understood what the positions of the parties were - Whether it is open to appellate courts to conclude that trial judge’s reasons are insufficient because the appellate court has reasonable questions or doubts about whether the trial judge made factual findings in compliance with the burden of proof resting on the Crown.

The Respondent was convicted of various sexual offences involving his stepdaughter. The offences were alleged to have been committed when the complainant was between nine and seventeen years old. The Respondent was charged with six counts of sexual misconduct, ranging from indecent assault and gross indecency to sexual intercourse with a minor. The Respondent admitted to having had sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter, but claimed that the relationship only became sexual when she was 15 and that the intercourse was consensual (the offence charged was under the then s. 146(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34 which prohibited sexual intercourse with a female person who was not his wife and who was under the age of 14). He denied all of the other allegations against him, including those involving the daughter of a family friend. The trial judge reviewed the evidence relating to eleven separate complaints against the Respondent. With respect to several of the complaints, the trial judge explained that while the accused denied that the events alleged ever happened, after lengthy cross-examination of the complainant by defence counsel, her account of the complaint was not seriously challenged. With respect to various other complaints, the trial judge was left with a reasonable doubt even though he did not necessarily believe the evidence of the accused. In some instances, the trial judge seemed to accept the complainant’s version of events due largely to the level of detail or, alternatively, to an apparent lack of exaggeration. The Respondent was convicted of three of the four counts concerning his stepdaughter. The charges with respect to the second complainant were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal overturned the Respondent’s conviction and ordered a new trial with respect to two of the three charges of which the Respondent was convicted. The court concluded that when the reasons were considered as a whole, the trial judge did not adequately explain his findings of credibility. While the trial judge generally stated the law accurately, his reasons were held not to demonstrate an approach that was consistent with the law as described. The verdict was set aside with respect to counts one and two only and a new trial was ordered in respect of those counts.