R. v. J.A.A.G., 2015 ONCA 27

• Judge: Simmons, Rouleau and Hourigan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: Thursday September 18, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2015 ONCA 27;(2015), 329 O.A.C. 185 (CA)

R. v. J.A.A.G. (2015), 329 O.A.C. 185 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.026

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. J.A.A.G. (appellant)

(C57952; 2015 ONCA 27)

Indexed As: R. v. J.A.A.G.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Simmons, Rouleau and Hourigan, JJ.A.

January 20, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of one count of sexual assault. He appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4684].

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The accused was convicted of one count of sexual assault - The main issue at trial was consent - The trial judge drew an inference that the complainant was asleep and was therefore unable to consent - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - Given the factual record of this case, the trial judge's reasons were deficient because she failed to consider and either reject or give effect to the accused's alternate inference that the complainant was awake when the sexual intercourse occurred but in a state of blackout or amnesia and consented to the sexual intercourse - That deficiency was an error of law - "The rejection of the alternate inference is a critical juncture in the road to conviction. In the absence of any reference and analysis of this alternative in the trial judge's reasons, effective appellate review is foreclosed" - See paragraphs 38 to 82.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Braich (A.) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903; 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Esau (A.J.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 777; 214 N.R. 241; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Griffin (J.) et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 42; 388 N.R. 334; 2009 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Mars (M.) (2006), 206 O.A.C. 387; 205 C.C.C.(3d) 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Dinardo (J.) (2008), 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. MacDonald (C.D.) (2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 186; 853 A.P.R. 186; 2008 NSCA 53, refd to. [para. 82].

Counsel:

Danielle Robitaille, for the appellant;

Katie Doherty, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 18, 2014, before Simmons, Rouleau and Hourigan, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered by Rouleau, J.A., on January 20, 2015.