R. v. L.A.T., (1993) 64 O.A.C. 380 (CA)

• Judge: Lacourcière, Goodman and Abella, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: July 13, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1993), 64 O.A.C. 380 (CA);1993 CanLII 3382 (NS CA);1993 CanLII 3382 (ON CA);14 OR (3d) 378;84 CCC (3d) 90;[1993] OJ No 1605 (QL);18 CRR (2d) 235;64 OAC 380

R. v. L.A.T. (1993), 64 O.A.C. 380 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. L.A.T. (appellant)

(C11661)

Indexed As: R. v. L.A.T.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Lacourcière, Goodman and Abella, JJ.A.

July 13, 1993.

Summary:

A father was charged with four sexual offences involving a daughter and a step-daughter. The alleged incidents occurred 12 to 18 years earlier. At the con­clusion of the defence's case, a statement given to the police by the daughter's sister was disclosed by the Crown. The statement involved hear­say concerning an alleged assault by a third party upon the complainant daughter. The father submitted that the failure to make timely disclosure prejudiced his ability to make a full answer and defence. The father applied for either a stay of proceedings or a mistrial. The trial judge characterized the late disclosure as an over­sight and offered to have the complainant daughter as well as an expert recalled for cross-examination. The father declined the offer. Subsequently, the father was con­victed. The father appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - A father was charged with four sexual offences involv­ing a daughter and a step daughter - At the end of the defence's case, the Crown applied to call the daugh­ter's sister in reply - The Crown then disclosed a statement by the daughter's sister concern­ing an alleged assault upon the daughter by a third party - The state­ment had been given to the police prior to the preliminary inquiry - The police failed to give the statement to the Crown pros­ecutor - The father applied for either a stay or a new trial because his right to make full answer and defence had been irrevocably pre­ju­diced - The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed all of the convictions and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4952

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Conduct by Crown - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lemay, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 4 C.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, appld. [para. 9].

R. v. W.J.V. - see R. v. Vokey (W.J.).

R. v. Vokey (W.J.) (1992), 102 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 275; 323 A.P.R. 275; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Nfld. C.A), consd. [para. 9].

R. v. Fineline Circuits Ltd. (1991), 10 C.R.(4th) 241 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 14].

Counsel:

Marc Rosenberg, for the appellant;

Shelley Hallett, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 23 and 24, 1993, before Lacourcière, Goodman and Abella, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Laco­urcière, J.A., and released on July 13, 1993.