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.

(Publication ban in case)

Criminal law - Reasonable verdict - Evidence - Admissibility - Expert evidence - Standard of review - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in unduly restricting the test set out in R. v. Lohrer, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732, and requiring an assessment of the reasonableness of the verdict - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in applying the wrong test for admissibility with respect to the “running stride/gait” evidence - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to apply the W.(D.)., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 analysis to defence evidence other than the Appellant’s testimony (by rejecting the probative value of evidence proffered by the defence on the basis of its inconsistency with the complainant’s testimony) - Application of R. v. Biniaris, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381, and R. v. Lohrer, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732.

The Appellant was convicted of sexual assault. At trial, the complainant testified that the Appellant forced her to go behind a school, and that she did not consent to sexual contact. The Appellant testified that the complainant willingly engaged in sexual activity. The only live issues at trial were consent and the credibility of the complainant and the Appellant. The Appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the verdict was not unreasonable, and that there were no errors of law disclosed on the record. Berger J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial. In his view, the trial judge failed to consider evidence relevant to material issues and to give proper effect to the evidence, and relied on inadmissible evidence. He found that those errors played an essential part in the trial judge’s reasoning process and were therefore sufficient to satisfy the test set out in R. v. Lohrer, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732, and to warrant appellate relief.