R. v. A.F.V.D.A., (1996) 195 N.R. 398 (SCC)

• Judge: Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Thursday March 21, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 195 N.R. 398 (SCC);195 NR 398;110 Man R (2d) 157;[1996] 1 SCR 471;1996 CanLII 227 (SCC)

R. v. A.F.V.D.A. (1996), 195 N.R. 398 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

A.F.V.D.A. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(24692)

Indexed As: R. v. A.F.V.D.A.

Supreme Court of Canada

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and

Iacobucci, JJ.

March 21, 1996.

Summary:

The accused was convicted on two counts of multiple sexual assaults upon the daugh­ter of his common law wife. The complain­ant was between the ages of nine and 15 during the time of the alleged assaults. He was sentenced to two consecutive two year prison terms. The accused appealed convic­tion and sentence.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a deci­sion reported at 102 Man.R.(2d) 19; 93 W.A.C. 19, dismissed the appeals. Huband, J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the ap­peal and ordered an acquittal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4973

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Power to review and weigh evidence - The accused was convicted on two counts of multiple sexual assaults upon the daughter of his common law wife - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal - The court stated that "[w]hen it is alleged that a verdict is unreasonable, the test to be applied by a court of appeal is whether a trier of fact, acting judicially, could reasonably have reached the conclusion that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In making its decision the court must ex­amine and, to some extent, reweigh the evidence. This rule applies both to verdicts based on findings of fact and to assess­ments of credibility. Having said all of this, an appellate court must avoid retrying the case. ... Our function is not to go through the transcript line by line looking for reasons to question the trial judge's findings." - The Supreme Court of Canada, for substantially the reasons of the Court of Appeal, affirmed that the judgment at trial was not unreasonable.

Counsel:

George A. Derwin, for the accused;

Richard A. Saull, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Sopinka, Gon­thier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The following oral decision was delivered for the court by Sopinka, J., on March 21, 1996.