R. v. D.D., (2000) 259 N.R. 156 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 14, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 259 N.R. 156 (SCC);2000 SCC 43;36 CR (5th) 261;47 WCB (2d) 311;136 OAC 201;191 DLR (4th) 60;[2000] FCJ No 44 (QL);[2000] 2 SCR 275;[2000] CarswellOnt 3255;148 CCC (3d) 41;259 NR 156;[2000] SCJ No 44 (QL);JE 2000-1894

R. v. D.D. (2000), 259 N.R. 156 (SCC)

MLB Headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.R. TBEd. OC.002

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. D.D. (respondent)

(27013; 2000 SCC 43)

Indexed As: R. v. D.D.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.

October 5, 2000.

Summary:

A jury convicted the accused of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching. The complainant was five to six years old at the time of the alleged abuse. She told no one about the abuse for 2.5 years. The accused appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 113 O.A.C. 179, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Crown appealed the court's ruling that expert evi­dence on delay in reporting child abuse was not admissible.

The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, and Gonthier, JJ., dissenting on the merits, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 693

Sexual offences - Evidence - Recent fabri­cation of complaint - A child com­plainant told a friend about sexual abuse alleged to have occurred 2.5 years earlier - The defence argued that the jury could draw a common sense inference from the delay that the complainant had fabricated the sexual assaults - The trial judge per­mitted the Crown to call a rebuttal witness, a psychologist qual­ified as an expert in child sexual abuse and the man­ner in which children disclose sexual abuse - His testi­mony was of a general nature (i.e., not specific to this complain­ant) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the evi­dence was inad­missible - It did not meet the requirement of necessity - At the time of the trial, the doc­trine of recent com­plaint as a prin­ciple of law did not exist - The trial judge erred in permit­ting expert evidence that sup­ported the correct­ness of this change in the law - See para­graphs 44 to 71.

Evidence - Topic 7000

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 693 ].

Evidence - Topic 7052

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Particular matters - Child abuse - [See Criminal Law - Topic 693 ].

Evidence - Topic 7056

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Particular matters - Sexual abuse - [See Criminal Law - Topic 693 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, appld. [paras. 8, 45].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. D.S.F. (1999), 118 O.A.C. 272; 43 O.R.(3d) 609 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. A.K. (1999), 125 O.A.C. 1; 45 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Villamar, [1999] O.J. No. 1923 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. G.C. (1996), 144 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 204; 451 A.P.R. 204; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 233 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Béland and Phillips, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398; 79 N.R. 263; 9 Q.A.C. 293, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30, refd to. [paras. 21, 50].

Kelliher (Village) v. Smith, [1931] S.C.R. 672, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. R.M.M. (1998), 106 O.A.C. 191; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 563 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. D.B.T. (1994), 71 O.A.C. 233; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 466 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. R.A.C. (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 522 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. T.E.M. (1996), 187 A.R. 273; 127 W.A.C. 273 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 28, 63].

R. v. Ménard (S.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 109; 228 N.R. 100; 111 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Dietrich (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 49 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Lillyman, [1896] 2 Q.B. 167, refd to. [para. 60].

Kribs v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 400, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Timm, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 315; 37 N.R. 204; 29 A.R. 509, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. P.S.M. (1992), 59 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 402 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rules of Evidence (1982), p. 322 [para. 62].

Hawkins, William, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1824), generally [para. 60].

Kaufman Report - see Ontario, Commis­sion on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin (Kaufman Report).

Learned Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testi­mony (1901), 15 Harv. L. Rev. 40, gen­erally [para. 52].

Ontario, Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin (Kaufman Report) (1998), p. 172 [para. 52].

Paciocco, David, Expert Evidence: Where Are We Now? Where Are We Going? (1998), pp. 16, 17 [para. 57].

Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 131, 132 [para. 19].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 620 [para. 47].

Wigmore on Evidence (2nd Ed. 1923), vol. 3, p. 764 [para. 60].

Counsel:

M. David Lepofsky and Christopher Webb, for the appellant;

P. Andras Schreck, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Pinkofsky Lockyer, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 14, 2000, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Court was delivered in both official languages on October 5, 2000, and the fol­lowing opinions were filed:

McLachlin, C.J.C., dissenting (L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 43;

Major, J. (Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 44 to 71.