R. v. B.J.S.,

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Neutral Citation: 2005 ABPC 158
• Citation: 2005 ABPC 158,(2005), 382 A.R. 311 (PC),382 AR 311,(2005), 382 AR 311 (PC),382 A.R. 311
• Date: 28 June 2005
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)

R. v. B.J.S. (2005), 382 A.R. 311 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. JL.133

Her Majesty the Queen v. B.J.S.

(040119067P101001; 2005 ABPC 158)

Indexed As: R. v. B.J.S.

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

June 28, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was charged with sexual assault. He applied to adduce evidence of the complainant's sexual activity.

The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application in part. The court held that evi­dence of two incidents could be admitted into evidence.

Editor's note: certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case other­wise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences, public morals and dis­orderly conduct - Sexual offences - Evi­dence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - The accused was charged with sexual assault - He applied to adduce evidence of the complainant's sexual activ­ity, including a consensual sexual encoun­ter in 1987 - The accused testified that in light of the 1987 incident he believed that the complainant had given him permission to touch her for the purposes of inspecting fidelity - The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application - The accused had realistically advanced an honest but mis­taken belief in consent, a recognized defence as being relevant to mens rea which was a live issue in this prosecution - The passage of time between the alleged agreement and the offence date did affect the value of the evidence - However, the value or weight of the evidence was not so reduced that it was incapable of supporting an inference that the accused lacked mens rea - There was considerable prejudice to the complainant by the admission of the evidence - Nevertheless, the legitimate purpose for which it could be used sub­stantially outweighed the danger of preju­dice - See paragraphs 54, 55, 107 and 109.

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences, public morals and dis­orderly conduct - Sexual offences - Evi­dence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - The accused was charged with sexual assault - He applied to adduce evidence of the complainant's sexual activ­ity, including an incident in 2003 where, after a consensual sexual encounter, the complainant allegedly threatened to charge the accused falsely with sexual assault - The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application - Ordinarily a witness could be questioned about his or her threat to lay illegitimate criminal charges - This evi­dence could tend to support an inference that the complainant had a reason to fabri­cate a false accusation - The evidence was relevant to the complainant's credibility - There was considerable prejudice to the complainant by the admission of the evi­dence - Nevertheless, the legitimate pur­pose for which it could be used substan­tially outweighed the danger of prejudice - See paragraphs 70, 108 and 109.

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences, public morals and dis­orderly conduct - Sexual offences - Evi­dence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the admissibility of evidence of a complainant's sexual activity in sexual assault cases under ss. 276, 276.1 and 276.2 of the Criminal Code - See para­graphs 28 to 51, 56 to 69 and 71 to 105.

Criminal Law - Topic 692

Sexual offences, public morals and dis­orderly conduct - Sexual offences - Evi­dence - Admissibility hearing - Evidence of complainant's sexual activity - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the procedural requirements of an application to adduce evidence of a complainant's sexual activity in sexual assault cases, including the admissibility hearing, under ss. 276, 276.1 and 276.2 of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 13 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme (1991), 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Darrach (A.S.) (2000), 259 N.R. 336; 137 O.A.C. 91; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 7].

R. v. Ecker (G.A.) (1995), 128 Sask.R. 161; 85 W.A.C. 161; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Mohan (1994), 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 402 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Corbett (1988), 85 N.R. 81; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Arp (B.) (1998), 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. J.-L.J. (2000), 261 N.R. 111; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 487 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Morin (1988), 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Sims (1994), 87 C.C.C.(3d) 402 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Watson (K.S.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 131; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Clarke (H.E.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 233; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Underwood (G.R.) (2002), 320 A.R. 151; 288 W.A.C. 151; 170 C.C.C.(3d) 500 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Morris (1983), 48 N.R. 341; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.) (1999), 235 N.R. 323; 232 A.R. 1; 195 W.A.C. 1; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Dickson (A.L.) (1993), 81 C.C.C.(3d) 224 (Yuk. Terr. C.A.), affd. [1994] 1 S.C.R. 153; 163 N.R. 58, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. C.E.N. (1998), 232 A.R. 277; 195 W.A.C. 277; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 198 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Crosby (W.S.) (1995), 183 N.R. 22; 143 N.S.R.(2d) 57; 411 A.P.R. 57; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. O.B. (No. 1) (1995), 141 N.S.R.(2d) 326; 403 A.P.R. 326 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. O.B. (1995), 146 N.S.R.(2d) 265; 422 A.P.R. 265; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 531 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. A.R.B. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 286; 128 C.C.C.(3d) 457 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Meddoui, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 320, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. B.A.W., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 811; 145 N.R. 87; 59 O.A.C. 323, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Anstey (R.) (2002), 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 264; 626 A.P.R. 264; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 567 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Wray, [1970] 4 C.C.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Harrer (1995), 101 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Shearing (I.) (2002), 290 N.R. 225; 168 B.C.A.C. 161; 275 W.A.C. 161; 165 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Mezzo (1986), 68 N.R. 1; 43 Man.R.(2d) 161; 27 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Monteleone (1987), 78 N.R. 377; 23 O.A.C. 241; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Cinous (J.) (2002), 285 N.R. 1; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Buric (G.J.) et al. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 321; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Buric (G.J.) et al. (1997), 209 N.R. 241; 98 O.A.C. 398; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. M.C.H. (1998), 230 N.R. 1; 113 O.A.C. 97; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Handy (J.) (2002), 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. A.W.E. - see R. v. Endicott.

R. v. Endicott (1993), 156 N.R. 321; 141 A.R. 353; 46 W.A.C. 353; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 462 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Lyons (1987), 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Mills (B.J.) (1999), 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 100].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 276, sect. 276.1, sect. 276.2 [para. 4 et seq.].

Counsel:

R. Tibbitt, for the Crown;

R. Hogle, for the accused.

This application was heard by Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following ruling on June 28, 2005.