Case information

Charter of rights — Principles of fundamental justice — Presumption of innocence — Criminal law — Appeals — Evidence — Testimony — Credibility — Reasonable doubt — Applicant convicted of sexual assault — Whether reasonable doubt standard enunciated in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 (namely that if judge or jury believes accused, then accused has raised reasonable doubt as to his or her guilt and must be acquitted) should apply in symmetrical manner where complainant gives testimony at trial that is not believable or is implausible ex facie with respect to absence of consent or alleged acts — Whether trial judge ignored this legal standard and rendered unreasonable verdict not supported by evidence, thereby erring in law and depriving accused of benefit of presumption of innocence and of reasonable doubt — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in dismissing appeal from trial judge’s verdict — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7 and 11(d).

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.

(PUBLICATION BAN / CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER IN CASE)
(COURT FILE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY THE PUBLIC)

The applicant, Mr. St Denis, was charged with sexually assaulting a 16 year old complainant. The respective versions and accounts given by the accused and the complainant concerning the events and facts, particularly the alleged acts and the presence or absence of consent, were difficult to reconcile.

The trial judge on the Court of Québec found that the testimony given by Mr. St Denis did not raise a reasonable doubt whereas the complainant’s testimony was credible and corroborated by several pieces of evidence. Mr. St Denis was convicted and sentenced to 90 days in prison to be served intermittently and two years of probation, with conditions. His appeal was dismissed by a unanimous Court of Appeal, which found that the trial judge’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility rested on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence.