Case information

Criminal Law — Evidence — Prior sexual history of complainant — Collateral fact rule — Threshold for overturning acquittal on appeal — Whether trial judge erred in admitting evidence of complainant’s other sexual assault allegations — Whether trial judge violated collateral fact rule — Whether trial judge erred in excluding certain evidence — Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in holding that trial judge committed errors that justified overturning acquittal and ordering new trial

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.

The appellant stood trial on several counts of sexual assault against a complainant from the time when she was a child between the ages of 12 and 14 and after she became an adult. At trial, the appellant’s position was that the allegations had been fabricated and that the complainant lacked credibility.

The trial judge permitted the appellant to cross-examine the complainant on details of sexual activity with another individual on the basis that those allegations had been fabricated, which was relevant to her credibility. The appellant was also permitted to cross-examine the complainant on details of a shoplifting offence to which she had pleaded guilty. The trial judge refused to permit the Crown to adduce evidence from the complainant about her last encounter with the appellant or to cross-examine the appellant about that encounter. The trial judge concluded that the complainant was not credible and observed that he believed the appellant’s evidence. The appellant was acquitted.

A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. The majority held that the trial judge committed several errors in his decisions on the evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual history, shoplifting offence, and the final interaction between the appellant and complainant. The majority held that the trial judge’s errors met the standard to overturn an acquittal as set out in R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 609. In dissent, Noel J.A. would have held that the trial judge did not err in his treatment of the prior sexual history evidence. To the extent that that the trial judge erred in respect of other matters, the errors were insufficient to justify overturning an acquittal. Noel J.A. would have dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal.