R. v. M.J.B., (2015) 606 A.R. 121

JudgeAbella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Côté and Brown, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateOctober 20, 2015
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2015), 606 A.R. 121;2015 SCC 48

R. v. M.J.B. (2015), 606 A.R. 121; 652 W.A.C. 121 (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: [2015] A.R. TBEd. OC.103

M.J.B. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(36421; 2015 SCC 48; 2015 CSC 48)

Indexed As: R. v. M.J.B.

Supreme Court of Canada

Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Côté and Brown, JJ.

October 20, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual touching for events occurring on August 16, 2009, between the then 27 year old accused and his then 14 year old half-sister. Both were intoxicated. The trial judge accepted the half-sister's version of events as credible and reliable and rejected the accused's version. The accused appealed his convictions, arguing that (1) the trial judge misapprehended key evidence; (2) the verdict was unreasonable; (3) the trial judge was more critical in assessing the accused's evidence as compared with the half-sister's evidence; and (4) the trial judge wrongly considered portions of the half-sister's videotaped statement to police under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code to confirm her testimony at trial.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2015), 600 A.R. 139; 645 W.A.C. 139, dismissed the appeal. Wakeling, J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal on the ground that, given concerns with the reliability of the half-sister's evidence where she was unable to recall most of what happened, the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Côté, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal for the reasons of the Court of Appeal.

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.

Criminal Law - Topic 4957

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misapprehension of evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5020 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual touching for events occurring on August 16, 2009, between the then 27 year old accused and his then 14 year old half-sister - Both were intoxicated - The trial judge accepted the half-sister's version of events as credible and reliable and rejected the accused's version - The accused appealed his convictions, arguing, inter alia, that the trial judge misapprehended evidence and the verdict was unreasonable - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - There was no palpable and overriding error in assessing the evidence - The half-sister testified that the accused initiated the sexual activity (took advantage of her while she was intoxicated) - The accused testified that he passed out and awoke to find the half- sister initiating sexual activity, which he rebuffed by pushing her off - The half-sister admittedly had little memory of what specifically occurred - Notwithstanding her memory problems, the trial judge found her evidence credible and reliable, and much of the accused's evidence not credible - The verdict was not unreasonable - Wakeling, J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal on the ground that, given concerns with the reliability of the half-sister's evidence where she was unable to recall most of what happened, the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal for the reasons stated by the majority of the Court of Appeal.

Counsel:

[not disclosed].

This appeal was heard on October 16, 2015, before Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Côté and Brown, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 20, 2015, the following judgment of the Court was delivered orally in both official languages by Abella, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • R v Sandoval-Barillas, 2017 ABCA 154
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • May 24, 2017
    ...of being assessed directly, rather than by inference from the content of a jury charge: compare the “judge alone” case of R v B(M.J.), 2015 SCC 48, [2015] 3 SCR 321 affirming 2015 ABCA 146 at paras 15 to 20, 331 CCC (3d) 295. In either jury or non-jury cases, however, the trier of fact is e......
  • R v Mehari, 2020 SKCA 37
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • March 31, 2020
    ...where one person’s account of events is pitted against that of another: R v MJB, 2015 ABCA 146 at para 33, 331 CCC (3d) 295, aff’d 2015 SCC 48, [2015] 3 SCR 321. In such cases, an unstated premise may be that if a complainant and the accused both have defects in their evidence, it is necess......
  • R. v. Balla (B.J.), 2016 ABCA 212
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • April 14, 2016
    ...to reasonable verdict under s 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code : see eg R v B (MJ) , 2015 ABCA 146 at paras 17-20, 600 AR 139, affirmed 2015 SCC 48 at para 1, [2015] 3 SCR 321. [27] The third ground of appeal concerns what is said to be a failure of the trial judge to exercise a "gate-keep......
  • R v Profeit,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • November 23, 2021
    ...70 at paras 32-54, 599 AR 142; R v Fleig, 2014 ABCA 97, 572 AR 161; R v B(MJ), 2015 ABCA 146 at paras 15-34, 331 CCC (3d) 295, affirmed by 2015 SCC 48, [2015] 3 SCR 31; see also R v Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40, [2011] 3 SCR 3. [69]        All that said, a re-tri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • R v Sandoval-Barillas, 2017 ABCA 154
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • May 24, 2017
    ...of being assessed directly, rather than by inference from the content of a jury charge: compare the “judge alone” case of R v B(M.J.), 2015 SCC 48, [2015] 3 SCR 321 affirming 2015 ABCA 146 at paras 15 to 20, 331 CCC (3d) 295. In either jury or non-jury cases, however, the trier of fact is e......
  • R. v. Balla (B.J.), 2016 ABCA 212
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • April 14, 2016
    ...to reasonable verdict under s 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code : see eg R v B (MJ) , 2015 ABCA 146 at paras 17-20, 600 AR 139, affirmed 2015 SCC 48 at para 1, [2015] 3 SCR 321. [27] The third ground of appeal concerns what is said to be a failure of the trial judge to exercise a "gate-keep......
  • R v Mehari, 2020 SKCA 37
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • March 31, 2020
    ...where one person’s account of events is pitted against that of another: R v MJB, 2015 ABCA 146 at para 33, 331 CCC (3d) 295, aff’d 2015 SCC 48, [2015] 3 SCR 321. In such cases, an unstated premise may be that if a complainant and the accused both have defects in their evidence, it is necess......
  • R v Profeit,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • November 23, 2021
    ...70 at paras 32-54, 599 AR 142; R v Fleig, 2014 ABCA 97, 572 AR 161; R v B(MJ), 2015 ABCA 146 at paras 15-34, 331 CCC (3d) 295, affirmed by 2015 SCC 48, [2015] 3 SCR 31; see also R v Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40, [2011] 3 SCR 3. [69]        All that said, a re-tri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT