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 the “pathway to conviction” referred to by this Court in R. v. Sheppard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869 and R. v. Braich, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903 satisfied by reasons for judgment which demonstrate that the trial judge has understood and considered the key legal and evidentiary issues in the case and the positions of the parties, or whether “pathway to conviction” now requires that a trial judge, in order to properly convict, expressly map out, step by step, his or her analysis of all potentially problematic evidence, expressly resolve all potential “frailties” or “inconsistencies” in the evidence, even in cases in which trial counsel have not addressed those frailties and inconsistencies in their submissions, and even in the absence of any apparent palpable and overriding error in the reasons.

The Respondent was convicted of various sexual offences and of uttering threats. The complainant, the Respondent’s niece by marriage, alleged that the Respondent abused her sexually when she was between five and thirteen years old. At the Respondent’s trial, his counsel attacked the complainant’s credibility. It was argued that it was not feasible for the abuse to have occurred with the frequency alleged, often when other family members were said to be in the house. Defence counsel described 15 specific areas of the complainant’s evidence which he said showed her to be a non-credible witness. Notwithstanding the inconsistencies in various parts of the complainant’s testimony, the trial judge convicted the Respondent. On the date set for sentencing, new counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondent and applied to reopen the trial and call alibi evidence. The trial judge allowed the application and, after hearing three more days of evidence, upheld the conviction. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge failed to adequately explain how he had overcome the frailties in the complainant’s evidence in convicting the Respondent. The conviction was thus overturned and a new trial was ordered.