R. v. Ferguson (L.D.), (1996) 85 B.C.A.C. 33 (CA)

• Judge: Carrothers, Finch and Newbury, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: December 18, 1996
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1996), 85 B.C.A.C. 33 (CA)

R. v. Ferguson (L.D.) (1996), 85 B.C.A.C. 33 (CA);

    138 W.A.C. 33

MLB headnote and full text

Regina (respondent) v. Lorne Douglas Ferguson (appellant)

(CA021291)

Indexed As: R. v. Ferguson (L.D.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Carrothers, Finch and Newbury, JJ.A.

December 18, 1996.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction by a jury for one count of sexual assault of a child, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code. A second count of touching the child for a sexual purpose, contrary to s. 151, was stayed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 5464

Evidence and witnesses - Evidence of children - Out-of-court testimony - The accused was charged with sexual assault of a child, now approximately 4.5 years old - The trial judge held that an out-of-court statement by the child to her mother was admissible from the mother because it met the tests of necessity and reliability - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the admission of the statement was necessary to pinpoint the time, date, place and details of a particular incident which was no longer available in the viva voce evidence of the complainant - The court held that the complainant's subsequent denial or contradiction of her statement did not mean the statement was unreliable and should not be admitted - See paragraphs 70 to 82.

Evidence - Topic 1751

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Children's statements - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5464 ].

Evidence - Topic 4543

Witnesses - Attendance and oath - Oath - Child of tender years - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a child witness who did not understand the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation may be permitted to testify under s. 16(3) of the Canada Evidence Act only if the child promised to tell the truth and, in doing so, understood the difference between truth and falsehood and under­stood the duty to tell the truth as to what the child saw or recalled - See paragraphs 65, 69.

Evidence - Topic 4543

Witnesses - Attendance and oath - Oath - Child of tender years - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the standard of proof to be met on an inquiry under s. 16 of the Canada Evidence Act - The court held that it was sufficient for the court to be satisfied on a standard of prob­abilities that the child was capable of communicating the evidence and under­standing the nature of a promise, whether the proposed witness was tendered by the Crown or the defence - See paragraphs 49 to 54, 69.

Evidence - Topic 4543

Witnesses - Attendance and oath - Oath - Child of tender years - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had a discretion to allow coun­sel to ask questions of a child in an inquiry under s. 16 of the Canada Evi­dence Act, in addition to his own questions - See para­graphs 44 to 48, 69.

Evidence - Topic 4543

Witnesses - Attendance and oath - Oath - Child of tender years - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the fail­ure to ask the child witness whether he or she understood the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation was not always an important error, and could be cured by the application of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) or (iv) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 36 to 43, 69.

Evidence - Topic 4543

Witnesses - Attendance and oath - Oath - Child of tender years - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that although it was advantageous in some cases to conduct the inquiry of a child witness under s. 16 of the Canada Evi­dence Act in the jury's presence, there was no legislative requirement and therefore it was not an error to conduct the inquiry in the jury's absence - See paragraphs 24 to 35, 69.

Evidence - Topic 5544

Witnesses - Competency and compel­lability - Competency - Child of tender years - [See all Evidence - Topic 4543 ].

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, consd. [para. 2].

R. v. Marguard (D.) (1993), 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Reynolds, [1950] 1 All E.R. 335 (C.A.), consd. [para. 25].

R. v. Dunne (1929), 99 L.J.K.B. 117 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. N. (1992), 95 Cr. App. Rep. 256 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Demirok v. R. (1977), 137 C.L.R. 20 (Aust.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Hampshire, [1995] 2 All E.R. 1019; [1995] 2 Cr. App. Rep. 319 (C.A.), not appld. [para. 28].

R. v. R.R.D. (1989), 72 Sask.R. 142; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), consd. [para. 37].

R. v. D.(R.R.) - see R. v. R.R.D.

R. v. Krack (1990), 39 O.A.C. 57; 73 O.R.(2d) 480 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. K.(F.) - see R. v. Krack.

R. v. Fabre (M.) (1990), 46 Q.A.C. 133; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 565 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. J.P. (1993), 150 N.R. 378; 54 Q.A.C. 81; 20 C.R.(4th) 397 (S.C.C.), affing. (1992), 150 N.R. 379; 54 Q.A.C. 82; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 276 (C.A.), consd. [para. 40].

R. v. P.(J.) - see R. v. J.P.

R. v. Salmon (1972), 10 C.C.C.(2d) 184 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. D.D. (1991), 46 O.A.C. 189; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 511 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Peterson (B.) (1996), 89 O.A.C. 60; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 64 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Yacoob (1981), 72 Cr. App. Rep. 313 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Geetah, [1983] N.W.T.R. 218 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Proudlock (1978), 24 N.R. 199; 43 C.C.C.(2d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Khan (1988), 27 O.A.C. 142; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 197 (C.A.), affd. [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92, consd. [para. 58].

R. v. C.W.G. (1994), 39 B.C.A.C. 264; 64 W.A.C. 264; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 240 (C.A.), consd. [para. 61].

R. v. G.(C.W.) - see R. v. C.W.G.

R. v. McGovern (B.J.) (1993), 88 Man.R.(2d) 18; 51 W.A.C. 18; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Farley (A.W.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 337; 99 C.C.C.(3d) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Rockey (S.E.) (1996), 204 N.R. 214; 95 O.A.C. 134 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Smith (A.L.) (1992), 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 71].

Khan v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (Ont.) (1992), 57 O.A.C. 115; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 10 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Aguilar (E.G.) (1992), 57 O.A.C. 152; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 462 (C.A.), consd. [para. 77].

R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W. (1995), 131 Sask.R. 81; 95 W.A.C. 81; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 16 [para. 21]; sect. 16(1) [para. 44]; sect. 16(3) [para. 49].

Children and Young Persons Act (1933), 23 and 24 Geo. 5, c. 12 (U.K.), sect. 38(1) [para. 24].

Evidence Act (Can.) - see Canada Evidence Act.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence (8th Ed. 1995), p. 183 [para. 32].

Phipson on Evidence (14th Ed. 1990), p. 146 [para. 50].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), generally [para. 52]; p. 599 [para. 51].

Counsel:

P.D. Ryan, for the appellant;

K. Gillett, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 28, 1996, at Vancouver, British Columbia, by Carrothers, Finch and Newbury, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The following decision of the court was delivered by Finch, J.A., on December 18, 1996.