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.

Côté J.A. set out the following facts for the majority of the Court of Appeal. The complainant and the Appellant drove together a considerable distance in the Appellant’s truck en route to a work camp. Accompanying them in another truck were others, including her relative. Because of drinking stops en route, the complainant became very intoxicated. One of the legs of the journey was 20 miles of highway. The other party waited for the Appellant and the complainant for some time at an agreed upon meeting point. After about 30 to 45 minutes, the Appellant and the complainant arrived at the meeting place. The Appellant said he had turned off the main highway to stop and got lost.

The complainant was or soon became very upset and crying. She mentioned that her pants were on backwards and her panties were missing. She was not sure whether she wanted to go to the police or the hospital. Her relative persuaded her to carry on to the camp in a different vehicle. After arriving at one work camp, there was further delay in shifting some of the people and baggage to a different work camp. The complainant adamantly refused to ride to the second camp with the Appellant and it took much persuasion to induce her to do so. By the time of her arrival at the second camp, the complainant had discovered that her hiking boots were off, her track pants were on backwards, and that her panties had disappeared. After checking in at the camp, the complainant complained to the senior manager of the camp that the Appellant had raped her, and that she wanted to press charges. The police were called. The Appellant was told of the accusation. Though it was the middle of the night, he and his truck disappeared for one to two hours.

The police came and seized the garments of the Appellant. Inside (but not outside) one leg of his trousers was a surface light reddish smear. Definitive analysis for blood was not possible because the concentration of the substance causing the stain was too low. One inconclusive test indicated blood. The complainant’s medical examination was inconclusive. The complainant’s relative testified that the next day he confronted the Appellant who stated that there had been no intercourse, but “I just touchy feely’d her. . . . That’s all I did."

The Appellant was charged with one count of sexual assault. Trial was before a judge alone. The Appellant was convicted. The Appellant appealed. The panel of the Court of Appeal heard the appeal and Berger J.A. advised his colleagues that he required further argument, but none occurred. The majority upheld the conviction. Berger J.A. dissented, objected to the refusal of further argument and set out additional facts. Berger J.A. and the majority rendered different factual conclusions on several points. The majority held that DNA analysis of the stained fabric cut from the Appellant’s trousers indicated the presence of female DNA from the complainant and the Appellant’s DNA. Berger J.A. held that the analysis revealed that no one could say that the stain contained DNA.