Her Majesty the Queen v. D.K.

(Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave)

(Publication ban in case) (Publication ban on party)


Criminal law — Evidence — Prior consistent statements — Narrative as circumstantial evidence exception to presumptive inadmissibility of prior consistent statements — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in its application of exception — Whether trial judge used complainant’s prior consistent statement for improper purpose — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in its approach to reviewing reasons for judgement and reasons addressing prior consistent statements?


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.

The complainant suffered an injury during sexual intercourse with D.K. Her injury required emergency surgery. Her surgeon testified that the complainant said to him before her surgery that the injury occurred during “forced intercourse”. The complainant testified at trial. She said that she did not consent to intercourse and she complied out of fear. D.K. testified. He claimed the injury was an accident during consensual sex. The trial judge admitted the complainant’s prior statement to her surgeon into evidence. The statement was consistent with her in court testimony. The trial judge stated that it assisted in assessing the complainant’s credibility and reliability. D.K. was convicted of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal held that is was not clear whether the trial judge relied on the prior consistent statement for an improper purpose. It set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Lower Court Rulings

July 26, 2018
Ontario Court of Justice

Toronto 4817 998 16-75003451 ;
Conviction for sexual assault
February 3, 2020
Court of Appeal for Ontario

2020 ONCA 79 ;, C66287 ;
Appeal allowed, new trial ordered