R. v. D.C.B., (1994) 95 Man.R.(2d) 220 (CA)

• Judge: Philp, Twaddle and Kroft, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: July 07, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1994), 95 Man.R.(2d) 220 (CA)

R. v. D.C.B. (1994), 95 Man.R.(2d) 220 (CA);

    70 W.A.C. 220

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. B. (D.C.) (accused/appellant)

(Suit No. A.R. 93-30-01188)

Indexed As: R. v. D.C.B.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Philp, Twaddle and Kroft, JJ.A.

July 7, 1994.

Summary:

An accused was convicted of five counts of sexual touching and three counts of sex­ual assault and sentenced to three years' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently. The accused appealed his convictions.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 667

Sexual offences, rape or sexual assault - Evidence - Complaint - Admission of - [See Evidence - Topic 507 and both Evidence - Topic 1751 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5464

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of children - Out of court testimony - [See both Evidence - Topic 1751 ].

Evidence - Topic 507

Presentation of evidence - Failure to object - Effect of - An accused was charged with five counts of sexual touch­ing and three counts of sexual assault - The trial judge allowed into evidence spontaneous out-of-court statements made by the child complainants to their school counsellor - In dismissing the accused's appeal from conviction, the Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed that the out-of-court statements were properly admitted - Justice Philp stated that because the accused did not object at trial and because he used the evidence in an attempt to further his case, he could not complain - Justice Philp emphasized that the trial judge used the evidence only with respect to the issue of the complainants' credibility and not as proof of the truth of the state­ments - See paragraphs 1 to 17.

Evidence - Topic 1130

Relevant facts, relevance and materiality - Relevance of evidence offered - Prior consistent statements - [See both Evidence - Topic 1751 ].

Evidence - Topic 1751

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Children's statements - General - An accused was charged with five counts of sexual touching and three counts of sexual assault - The trial judge allowed into evidence spontaneous out-of-court state­ments made by the child complainants to their school counsellor - The Manitoba Court of Appeal affirmed that the out-of-court statements were properly admitted - Justice Twaddle refused to apply the tradi­tional rule against prior consistent state­ments, and affirmed the admission, where (1) the child had testified and (2) the school counsellor had testified to the cir­cumstances under which the statements were made - See paragraphs 45 to 89.

Evidence - Topic 1751

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Children's statements - General - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the traditional rule against prior consistent statements should not be applied to exclude evidence of a child's complaint of sexual abuse - See paragraphs 18 to 96 - Justice Twaddle stated that unless the statement can be admitted under the rule in Khan (SCC), admission should only be allowed where (1) the child testifies and (2) the recipient of the statement testifies as to the circumstances in which the state­ment was made - See paragraphs 82 to 85 - Justice Philp opined that such a state­ment should be limited to showing con­sistency with a child's courtroom testimony - See paragraph 37.

Evidence - Topic 1754

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Children's statements - Child protection and abuse cases - [See both Evidence - Topic 1751 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, consd. [paras. 13, 45, 94].

R. v. L.E.D., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 111; 97 N.R. 321; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 142; 71 C.R.(3d) 1, consd. [paras. 14, 51].

Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1944] A.C. 315; [1944] 2 All E.R. 13 (H.L.), consd. [paras. 14, 52].

R. v. Owens (1986), 18 O.A.C. 125; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 275 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 14, 54].

R. v. G.R. (1993), 61 O.A.C. 198; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30; 111 N.R. 31; 86 Sask.R. 111; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 200; 77 C.R.(3d) 347, consd. [paras. 18, 80].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 134, consd. [paras. 19, 80].

R. v. R.S.W. (1992), 78 Man.R.(2d) 275; 16 W.A.C. 275; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241, consd. [paras. 21, 67].

R. v. Fair (J.E.) (1993), 67 O.A.C. 251; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 457 (C.A.), consd. [para. 23].

R. v. F. (J.E.) - see R. v. Fair (J.E.).

R. v. J.E.F. - see R. v. Fair (J.E.).

R. v. George (1985), 23 C.C.C.(3d) 42 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 25].

R. v. Jones (T.J.) (1988), 29 O.A.C. 219; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 248 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 26, 49].

R. v. J.A.H. (1993), 27 C.R.(4th) 274 (Ont. Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 79 C.R.(3d) 273; 49 C.R.R. 1; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 355; 75 O.R.(2d) 673, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 76 C.R.(3d) 329, consd. [para. 32].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 289, consd. [paras. 33, 86].

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, consd. [paras. 35, 86].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 43].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608; 12 C.R.N.S. 349; 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 347; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 4, consd. [para. 45].

Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1964] 2 All E.R. 881; [1965] A.C. 1001 (H.L.), consd. [para. 45].

R. v. Manahan (1990), 110 A.R. 390; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. E.L.H. (1990), 100 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 272 A.P.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. D.D. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 189; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 511 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Hutchison and Ambrose (1975), 11 N.B.R.(2d) 376; 7 A.P.R. 376; 25 C.C.C.(2d) 90 (C.A.), affd. [1977] 2 S.C.R. 717; 9 N.R. 431; 14 N.B.R.(2d) 452; 15 A.P.R. 452, consd. [para. 51].

R. v. Ambrose - see R. v. Hutchison and Ambrose.

Fox v. General Medical Council, [1960] 3 All E.R. 225 (P.C.), consd. [para. 65].

R. v. Turner, [1975] 1 All E.R. 70 (C.A.), consd. [para. 72].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 481; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 294; 50 C.C.L.T. 101, consd. [para. 87].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 246.5 [para. 26].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 275 [para. 26]; sect. 715.1 [paras. 29, 34].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Baar, Carl, Criminal Court Delay and the Charter: The Use and Misuse of Social Facts in Judicial Policy Making (1993), 72 Can. Bar Rev. 305, generally [paras. 31, 32].

Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Rev. 1974), vol. 5, § 1420 [para. 62].

Young, A.H., Child Sexual Abuse and the Law of Evidence: Some Current Cana­dian Issues (1992), 11 Can. J. Fam. L. 11, p. 35 [para. 69].

Counsel:

D. Margolis, Q.C., for the appellant;

G.A. Lawlor, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 25, 1993, before Philp, Twaddle and Kroft, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On July 7, 1994, the judgment was delivered for the Court of Appeal and the following opinions were filed:

Philp, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 44;

Twaddle, J.A. - see paragraphs 45 to 89;

Kroft, J.A. - see paragraphs 90 to 96.