R. v. Forsythe, (1980) 32 N.R. 520 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 27, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1980), 32 N.R. 520 (SCC);5 WCB 6;112 DLR (3d) 385;[1980] CarswellOnt 37;32 NR 520;[1980] ACS no 66;[1980] SCJ No 66 (QL);1980 CanLII 15 (SCC);[1980] 2 SCR 268;19 CR (3d) 261;53 CCC (2d) 225

R. v. Forsythe (1980), 32 N.R. 520 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Forsythe

Indexed As: R. v. Forsythe

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.

June 27, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of rape. After a preliminary inquiry the accused was committed for trial. At the preliminary inquiry the accused requested to examine the complainant at an in camera hearing pursuant to s. 142 of the Criminal Code and was refused. The accused applied to the Ontario Supreme Court for an order of certiorari to quash the committal for trial on the ground that the judge at the preliminary inquiry lost jurisdiction when he refused to allow the accused to examine the complainant.

The Ontario Supreme Court dismissed the application. The accused appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the refusal to quash the committal for trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 3604

Preliminary inquiry - Judicial review of committal order, grounds for - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the grounds upon which a committal order for trial may be quashed (see paragraphs 2 to 4).

Criminal Law - Topic 3605

Preliminary inquiry - Judicial review of committal order - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that committals for trial are not appealable and can only be challenged by certiorari (see paragraph 2).

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences, evidence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the changes in the law of evidence respecting sexual offences resulting from the enactment of s. 142 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 8).

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences, evidence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that s. 142 of the Criminal Code applies to a preliminary inquiry (see paragraph 9).

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences, evidence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that there should be no public revelation of the notice or particulars referred to in s. 142 of the Criminal Code prior to the in camera hearing required by s. 142 (see paragraph 12).

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences, evidence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the proper procedure at an in camera hearing conducted by a trial judge pursuant to s. 142 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 14 to 16).

Words and Phrases

Particulars - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "particulars" as found in s. 142 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 10).

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Botting, [1966] 2 O.R. 121, refd to. [para. 2].

Chromuim Mining and Smelting Corp. Ltd. v. Fortin, [1968] Que. Q.B. 536, refd to. [para. 2].

Patterson v. The Queen, [1970] S.C.R. 409, refd to. [para. 2].

Doyle v. The Queen, 9 N.R. 285; [1977] 1 S.C.R. 597, refd to. [para. 3].

Alliance des Professeurs catholiques de Montréal v. Labour Relations Board of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 140, refd to. [para. 3].

Attorney General of Quebec v. Cohen, 27 N.R. 344; [1979] 2 S.C.R. 305, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Moulton, 19 A.R. 286; [1980] 1 W.W.R. 711, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Rousel (1979), 10 C.R.(3d) 184, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Lawson (1978), 39 C.C.C.(2d) 85, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Morris (1977), 1 C.R.(3d) 284, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. O'Brien (1976), 14 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 250; 31 C.C.C.(2d) 396, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. MacIntyre (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 217, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. McKenna, McKinnon and Nolan (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 210, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Finnessey (1906), 10 C.C.C. 347, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Basken and Kohl (1974), 21 C.C.C.(2d) 321, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Krausz (1973), 54 Cr. App. R. 466, refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 142 [para. 5], sect. 475 [para. 3].

Counsel:

Keith E. Wright, for the appellant;

Bonnie J. Wein, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, MacINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ. of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on May 14, 1980.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by LASKIN, C.J.C. on June 27, 1980.