R. v. C.S.M., (2004) 223 N.S.R.(2d) 311 (CA)

• Judge: Glube, C.J.N.S., Freeman and Fichaud, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: May 04, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2004), 223 N.S.R.(2d) 311 (CA);2004 NSCA 60

R. v. C.S.M. (2004), 223 N.S.R.(2d) 311 (CA);

 705 A.P.R. 311

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.034

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. C.S.M., a young person within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Can.) (respondent)

(C.A.C. 202817; 2004 NSCA 60)

Indexed As: R. v. C.S.M.

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Glube, C.J.N.S., Freeman and Fichaud, JJ.A.

May 4, 2004.

Summary:

An accused was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and two counts of inviting a person under age 14 to touch him for a sexual purpose. The accused appealed his convictions.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a judgment not reported in this series of reports, set aside the convictions and substituted acquittals. The court held that the verdicts were unreasonable because the trial judge erred in accepting the credibility of a key child witness. The Crown appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions.

Editor's Note: The name of the young person charged was initialized by the Court to comply with the publication ban requirements of s. 111(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5007 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5007

Appeals - Indictable offences - Review of verdicts - Where verdict based on findings of credibility - The accused babysitter was convicted of sexual offences against a four year old girl and her seven year old brother, the key Crown witness - The trial judge accepted the brother's unsworn evidence after being satisfied that the brother was sufficiently intelligent to justify accepting his evidence and that he understood the duty to tell the truth - Notwithstanding noting the high deference afforded a trial judge's assessment of credibility, the summary conviction appeal court substituted acquittals on the basis that the trial judge erred in finding the brother to be credible and that, accordingly, the verdict was unreasonable - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal restored the convictions - The unreasonableness of a verdict was a question of law - The summary conviction appeal court impermissibly substituted its view on credibility in circumstances where the trial judge did not misapprehend evidence or otherwise err - The summary conviction appeal court's issue with the brother's credibility was based on purportedly contradictory medical evidence, which the summary conviction appeal court misapprehended (i.e. evidence not contradictory) - The trial judge considered the inconsistencies in the brother's testimony, was alive to issues of concern and could have reasonably concluded that the brother was credible - Accordingly, the summary conviction appeal court erred in finding the verdict unreasonable.

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5007 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5462

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of children - Credibility - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5007 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Travers (R.H.) (2001), 193 N.S.R.(2d) 263; 602 A.P.R. 263; 2001 NSCA 71, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Cunningham (P.R.) (1995), 143 N.S.R.(2d) 149; 411 A.P.R. 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. G.W., [1996] O.J. No. 3075 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Emery (1981), 61 C.C.C.(2d) 84 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 184 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Kent (H.M.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 133; 171 N.R. 231; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 383 A.P.R. 81; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 344, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. A.G., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 439; 252 N.R. 272; 132 O.A.C. 1; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Molodowic (A.J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420; 252 N.R. 250; 145 Man.R.(2d) 201; 218 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992; 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Ryan (T.M.) (2002), 210 N.S.R.(2d) 194; 659 A.P.R. 194; 2002 NSCA 153, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Barrett (J.R.) (2004), 222 N.S.R.(2d) 182; 701 A.P.R. 182; 2004 NSCA 38, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. P.S.B. (2004), 222 N.S.R.(2d) 26; 701 A.P.R. 26; 2004 NSCA 25, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Hurford (C.N.) (1998), 170 N.S.R.(2d) 379; 515 A.P.R. 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Hewitt (R.J.) (2003), 173 O.A.C. 383 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Lanteigne (E.) (1997), 189 N.B.R.(2d) 235; 482 A.P.R. 235 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50, refd to. [para. 59].

Counsel:

Peter Rosinski, for the appellant;

Brian Casey, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 16, 2004, at Halifax, N.S., before Glube, C.J.N.S., Freeman and Fichaud, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On May 4, 2004, Fichaud, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.