Case information

Criminal law — Sexual offences — Persons in position of authority — Whether Supreme Court of Canada should clarify, nearly thirty years after R. v. Audet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 171, criteria and method of analysis making it possible to identify “position of trust” within meaning of s. 153(1) of Criminal Code, and define distinctive framework ensuring differentiated assessment of four positions referred to in statute (trust, authority, dependency and exploitation) in order to guarantee more consistent and predictable application of criminal law in this area — Whether Supreme Court should qualify and adapt scope of R. v. G. (S.G.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 716, in order to establish particular framework for use of character evidence in trials where credibility constitutes sole basis of guilt.

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 IN CASE)

In 2003, the victim met R.G. He was her uncle, her mother’s brother. An intimate relationship quickly developed between them. She was 14 years old; he was 41 years old. They had sex regularly. Jealousy set in and domestic violence followed shortly thereafter. R.G. denigrated the victim and assaulted her. A few years later, the victim became pregnant. She was 16-17 years old at the time. She gave birth to a boy in the spring of 2007, that is, before turning 18 years old. One morning in 2013, while the parties were separated, R.G. was present at the victim’s home and wanted to have sex. The victim refused. He lied down in the victim’s bed, undid his pants, took out his penis and directed it towards the victim’s head.
The trial judge rejected the accused’s account; his testimony was blunt and was essentially implausible and not reliable. The evidence adduced was strong, and the Crown witnesses were reliable. The complaint, as presented and in light of the evidence that supported it, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. R.G. had been in a position of trust in relation to the victim, and it was that position of trust that had led the victim to have sex with him. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The ground of appeal raised by R.G., concerning the application of R. v. Audet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 171, had to fail. There was an imbalance arising from a position of trust; the victim, a young person, had evidently been in a position of vulnerability. The trial judge did not commit a reviewable error that could have affected the verdict.