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 - Offences - Sexual assault - Similar acts - Circumstantial evidence - Reasonable verdict - Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that trial judgment was reasonable as regards existence of evidence linking Appellant to similar acts - Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that trial judgment was reasonable as regards finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence on 14th count.

The Appellant was convicted on 15 counts of sexual assault under s. 271(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. In the Court of Appeal, he argued that the court should have stayed the proceedings because the identification procedure followed by the police, by which they had helped the victims identify the assailant, had irreparably violated his right to a fair trial. The Appellant also submitted that the evidence of similar acts was not admissible and that the circumstantial evidence did not support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty on the 14th count. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the bases that the irregularities in the evidence adduced to identify the accused did not justify a stay of proceedings and that the similar act evidence was admissible because it contained sufficient similarities and a degree of distinctiveness that supported a conclusion that the crimes had likely been committed by one person, and because there was evidence linking the Appellant to those acts. The majority of the Court of Appeal also held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. The dissenting judge, Chamberland J.A., would have allowed the appeal.