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 Evidence Similar fact evidence Application of R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial judge’s improper use of similar fact evidence did not affect the findings of guilt on counts 1 and 2 Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the reasons for judgment were sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review.

The appellant, Mr. Vuradin, was found guilty on four counts of sexual assault and one count of unlawful touching for a sexual purpose. The complainants included three children, two sisters and one of the sisters’ friends, and one adult, the mother of the sister complainants. The testimony of all four complainants was similar in that each testified to inappropriate touching and groping in Mr. Vuradin’s car while he drove them to their various activities, and the Crown successfully applied to have the similar fact evidence admitted with respect to each of the charges. On appeal, Mr. Vuradin argued that the trial judge erred in allowing the similar fact evidence application and in his application of the test set out in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on three of the counts. Côté J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on all counts. He agreed with the majority’s view on the issue of similar fact evidence, although he would not have limited it to three of the five counts. However, unlike the majority, Côté J.A. also found that the trial judge’s reasons for judgment were inadequate and that he did not properly consider the doctrine of reasonable doubt.