R. v. A.G., 2000 SCC 17

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 13, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2000 SCC 17;(2000), 252 N.R. 272 (SCC);184 DLR (4th) 238;[2000] ACS no 18;JE 2000-837;132 OAC 1;32 CR (5th) 45;[2000] 1 SCR 439;143 CCC (3d) 46;AZ-50071556;45 WCB (2d) 455;[2000] SCJ No 18 (QL);252 NR 272

R. v. A.G. (2000), 252 N.R. 272 (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. AP.017

A.G. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General of Manitoba, The Attorney General of British Columbia, The Attorney General for Alberta, The Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario), The Innocence Project and The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (intervenors)

(26924; 2000 SCC 17)

Indexed As: R. v. A.G.

Supreme Court of Canada

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

April 13, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting his niece. The trial judge con­ducted a detailed review of the evidence, addressed all of the accused's submissions as to why the niece should be disbelieved, and was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Finlayson, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 114 O.A.C. 336, dismissed the conviction appeal. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evi­dence. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or un­sup­ported by evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that on an appeal on the basis that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evi­dence, the proper test remained whether the verdict was one that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably have rendered - The court stated that "in embarking on the exercise mandated by s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, the reviewing court must engage in a thorough re-examination of the evidence and bring to bear the weight of its judicial experience to decide whether, on all the evidence, the verdict was a reasonable one. Inevitably the ver­dict will be one that was open to the jury, in the sense that it was not an error of law for the trial judge to leave it to the jury for consideration. Moreover, it is not sufficient for the re­viewing judge to simply take a different view of the evidence than the jury did. The appeal court, if it is to overturn the verdict, must articulate the basis upon which it concludes that the verdict is in­consistent with the requirements of a ju­dicial ap­preciation of the evidence." - See para­graph 1.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or un­sup­ported by evidence - An accused's sexual assault conviction appeal was dis­missed on the ground that the verdict was not un­reasonable or unsupported by the evidence - The dissenting appellate court judge based his dissent on his "unease" with the verdict - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a verdict was not un­reasonable or unsupported by the evidence merely because the appellate court had a "vague unease, or a lingering or lurking doubt based on its own review of the evidence" -See paragraphs 18 to 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Biniaris (J.) (2000), 252 N.R. 204 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 1].

R. v. Molodowic (A.J.) (2000), 252 N.R. 250 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 75 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. G.B., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 57; 111 N.R. 62; 86 Sask.R. 142, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. François (L.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827; 169 N.R. 241; 73 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Burke (J.W.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Esau (A.J.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 777; 214 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; 235 N.R. 323; 232 A.R. 1; 195 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. G.W., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 597; 247 N.R. 135; 181 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 189; 550 A.P.R. 189, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Chase, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 293; 80 N.R. 247; 82 N.B.R.(2d) 229; 208 A.P.R. 229, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. K.B.V. (1992), 52 O.A.C. 393; 13 C.R.(4th) 87 (C.A.), affd. [1993] 2 S.C.R. 857; 154 N.R. 277; 64 O.A.C. 198, refd to. [para. 31].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Burt, M., Rape Myths and Acquaintance Rape, in Acquaintance Rape: The Hidden Crime (1991), p. 28 [para. 30].

Holmstrom, L., and Burgess, A., The Vic­tim of Rape: Institutional Reactions (1983), pp. 174 to 179 [para. 30].

McGillivray, A., R. v. Bauder: Seductive Children, Safe Rapists, and Other Justice Tales (1998), 25 Man. L.J. 359, p. 381 [para. 30].

Counsel:

James Lockyer and David M. Tanovich, for the appellant;

C. Jane Arnup and Randolv Schwartz, for the respondent;

Robert J. Frater and Morris Pistyner, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Sheilla Leinburd (written submission only), for the intervenor, Attorney General of Manitoba;

William F. Ehrcke, Q.C., and Kate Ker, for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Jack Watson, Q.C. (written submission only), for the intervenor, Attorney Gen­eral for Alberta;

Frank R. Addario, for the intervenor, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario);

Marlys A. Edwardh, for the intervenor, The Innocence Project;

Melvyn Green, for the intervenor, As­sociation in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted.

Solicitors of Record:

Pinkofsky, Lockyer, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

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

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor, Attorney General of British Columbia;

Gold & Fuerst, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Criminal Lawyers' As­sociation (Ontario);

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, The Innocence Project;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted.

This appeal was heard on October 5-6, 1999, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 13, 2000, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Arbour, J. (Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 27;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 28 to 32.

Lamer, C.J.C., did not participate in the judgment.