R. v. M.J.B., 2015 ABCA 146

Document Cited authorities (61) Cited in (52) Precedent Map Related
JudgeWatson, Rowbotham and Wakeling, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)
Case DateTuesday April 28, 2015
JurisdictionAlberta
Citations2015 ABCA 146;(2015), 600 A.R. 139

R. v. M.J.B. (2015), 600 A.R. 139; 645 W.A.C. 139 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MY.001

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

(1403-0113-A; 2015 ABCA 146)

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

Alberta Court of Appeal

Watson, Rowbotham and Wakeling, JJ.A.

April 28, 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 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.

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 second Criminal Law - Topic 5020 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - An accused appealed his conviction on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that the "main strands" of an unreasonable verdict under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code were "whether (a) the evidence as a whole is such that a reasonable jury, properly instructed and acting judicially, could not have reached the verdict, or (b) fact findings on material matters of a decisive character are clearly wrong, or (c) whether the reasoning process used by the judge to get from the evidence to the verdict does not make sense due to internal incoherence or incompatibility with findings" - See paragraph 17.

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.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Campbell (K.A.) (2015), 599 A.R. 142; 643 A.P.R. 142; 2015 ABCA 70, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Cunningham (B.L.), [2014] A.R. Uned. 368; 2014 ABCA 329, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Fleig (C.M.) (2014), 572 A.R. 161; 609 W.A.C. 161; 2014 ABCA 97, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Lohrer (A.W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732; 329 N.R. 1; 208 B.C.A.C. 1; 344 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Jaw (S.G.), [2009] 3 S.C.R. 26; 393 N.R. 246; 464 A.R. 149; 2009 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Gagnon (L.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621; 347 N.R. 355; 2006 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Sinclair (T.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3; 418 N.R. 282; 268 Man.R.(2d) 225; 520 W.A.C. 225; 2011 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. R.P., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 746; 429 N.R. 361; 2012 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Wilcox (J.S.), [2014] 3 S.C.R. 616; [2014] N.R. Uned. 179; 2014 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Burke (J.) (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. 20].

R. v. Walle (A.J.), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 438; 433 N.R. 1; 533 A.R. 1; 557 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. L.V.R. (2014), 361 B.C.A.C. 94; 619 W.A.C. 94; 316 C.C.C.(3d) 120; 2014 BCCA 349, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. J.W., [2014] O.A.C. Uned. 563; 2014 ONCA 628, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. J.S.W. (2013), 311 O.A.C. 80; 301 C.C.C.(3d) 252; 2013 ONCA 593, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Corbett (R.P.), [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 329; 2013 ONCA 431, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Neundorf (D.L.) (2011), 285 O.A.C. 324; 283 C.C.C.(3d) 163; 2011 ONCA 732, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. T.T. (2009), 265 O.A.C. 47; 68 C.R.(6th) 1; 2009 ONCA 613, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Keresztes (M.), [2014] A.R. Uned. 293; 2014 ABCA 281, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. D.J.G. (2012), 539 A.R. 116; 561 W.A.C. 116; 2012 ABCA 336, refd to. [para. 34].

United States of America v. Greer (1976), 538 F.2d 437 (Dist. Ct. Cir.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 20].

R. v. Govenlock (G.W.) (2015), 599 A.R. 316; 643 A.P.R. 316; 2015 ABCA 122, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 21].

R. v. Jensen (C.K.) (2014), 588 A.R. 234; 626 W.A.C. 234; 2014 ABCA 435, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 21].

R. v. K.D.L., [2014] A.R. Uned. 179; 2014 ABCA 248, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 21].

R. v. Lohrer (A.W.) (2003), 186 B.C.A.C. 58; 306 W.A.C. 58; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 317 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 21].

R. v. O'Grady (G.L.) (1997), 93 B.C.A.C. 254; 151 W.A.C. 254; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 136 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 21].

R. v. Farinacci (L.W.) et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 197; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 21].

R. v. C.A.G., [2015] A.R. Uned. 49; 2015 ABCA 113, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 22].

Can v. Calgary Chief of Police et al. (2014), 584 A.R. 147; 623 W.A.C. 147; 315 C.C.C.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 23].

R. v. L.B. (2011), 274 O.A.C. 365; 270 C.C.C.(3d) 208 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 23].

R. v. Hopkins-Husson (1949), 34 Cr. App. Rep. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 25].

F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41; 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 26].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 66, footnote 30].

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 33].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 34].

R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 34].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 34].

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63, refd to. [para. 70, footnote 36].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 71, footnote 38].

Winship, Re (1970), 397 U.S. 358, refd to. [para. 72, footnote 41].

Woolmington v. Director of Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 75, footnote 47].

Briginshaw v. Briginshaw (1938), 60 C.L.R. 336 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 75, footnote 47].

R. v. Rabey, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513; 32 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 49].

Fain v. Commonwealth (1879), 78 Ky. 183, refd to. [para. 76, footnote 49].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30; 111 N.R. 31; 86 Sask.R. 111, refd to. [para. 77, footnote 50].

R. v. G.B. (1988), 65 Sask.R. 134 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77, footnote 50].

R. v. Stirling (B.J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 272; 371 N.R. 384; 251 B.C.A.C. 62; 420 W.A.C. 62, refd to. [para. 95, footnote 72].

R. v. W.E.M., [2015] A.R. Uned. 6; 2015 ABCA 7, refd to. [para. 95, footnote 72].

R. v. Pittiman (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 381; 346 N.R. 65; 209 O.A.C. 388, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 74].

R. v. Edgar (D.J.) (2010), 269 O.A.C. 171; 260 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114, footnote 102].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code Proposed Official Draft (1962), §§ 2.01(1), 2.01(2)(b) [para. 76, footnote 49].

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), p. 1268 [para. 86, footnote 59].

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada (4th Ed. 2014), pp. 407 [para. 114, footnote 102]; 1205 [para. 95, footnote 73]; 1318 [para. 111, footnote 96].

Epps, Daniel, The Consequences of Error in Criminal Justice (2015), 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1065, pp. 1075 [para. 72, footnote 43]; 1077 to 1081 [para. 74, footnote 45]; 1088 to 1109 [para. 73, footnote 44].

Garriott, James C., Pharmacology and Toxicology of Ethyl Alcohol, in Garriott's Medicolegal Aspects of Alcohol (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 40 to 42, 55 [para. 86, footnote 59].

Garriott's Medicolegal Aspects of Alcohol (3rd Ed. 1996), pp. 40 to 42, 55 [para. 86, footnote 59].

Knight, Michael, Criminal Appeals: A Study of the Powers of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on Appeals Against Conviction (1970), p. 2 [para. 72, footnote 40].

Packer, Herbert L., Two Models of the Criminal Process (1964), 113 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1, p. 16 [para. 71, footnote 37].

Rockerbie, Russell A., Alcohol and Drug Intoxication (1999), p. 172 [para. 86, footnote 59].

Ross, Robert Ernest, The Court of Criminal Appeal (1911), p. 1 [para. 62, footnote 19].

Thayer, James Bradley, The Presumption of Innocence in Criminal Cases (1897), 6 Yale L.J. 185, p. 187 [para. 72, footnote 42].

Wakeling, Audrey A., Corroboration in Canadian Law (1977), pp. 113 to 128 [para. 95, footnote 73].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Chadbourn Rev. 1979), vol. 2, p. 880 [para. 79, footnote 51].

Wilkinson, Harvie, In Defence of American Criminal Justice (2014), 67 Vand. L. Rev. 1099, p. 1609 [para. 75, footnote 47].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law: The General Part (1961), p. 38 [para. 76, footnote 49].

Counsel:

M.S. Hayes-Richards, for the respondent;

D.R. Hatch, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on February 3, 2015, before Watson, Rowbotham and Wakeling, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On April 28, 2015, the memorandum of judgment of the Court was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Watson and Rowbotham, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 38;

Wakeling, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 39 to 119.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
49 practice notes
  • R v Harrison
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • May 12, 2023
    ...identification decisions than older adults (forty-five and older) or children (seventeen and under)”). 150 The Queen v. M.J.B., 2015 ABCA 146, ¶ 90; 331 C.C.C. 3d 295, 328 per Wakeling, J.A. (“The court takes judicial notice that the brains of teenagers who consume large ......
  • R. v. Worme (S.B.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.036
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • October 14, 2015
    ...testimony can only be explained by the operation of these senses. 1 McCormick on Evidence 421 (7th ed. 2013). 36. The Queen v. M.J.B. , 2015 ABCA 146, ¶ 90 per Wakeling, J.A. ("The Court takes judicial notice that the brains of teenagers who consume large amounts of alcohol in a short time ......
  • R v Sandoval-Barillas, 2017 ABCA 154
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • May 24, 2017
    ...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 entitled to deference on questions of cre......
  • R v Mehari
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
    • March 31, 2020
    ...applied to defence evidence usually arises in situations 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 ......
    • Get Started for Free
46 cases
  • R v Harrison
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • May 12, 2023
    ...identification decisions than older adults (forty-five and older) or children (seventeen and under)”). 150 The Queen v. M.J.B., 2015 ABCA 146, ¶ 90; 331 C.C.C. 3d 295, 328 per Wakeling, J.A. (“The court takes judicial notice that the brains of teenagers who consume large ......
  • R. v. Worme (S.B.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. JN.036
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • October 14, 2015
    ...testimony can only be explained by the operation of these senses. 1 McCormick on Evidence 421 (7th ed. 2013). 36. The Queen v. M.J.B. , 2015 ABCA 146, ¶ 90 per Wakeling, J.A. ("The Court takes judicial notice that the brains of teenagers who consume large amounts of alcohol in a short time ......
  • R v Sandoval-Barillas, 2017 ABCA 154
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • May 24, 2017
    ...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 entitled to deference on questions of cre......
  • R. v. Balla (B.J.)
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • April 14, 2016
    ...applying the well-established lines of inquiry as 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 f......
    • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Digest: McPherson v Pham, 2018 SKQB 334
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Law Society Case Digests
    • November 30, 2018
    ...[2006] 1 SCR 621, 347 NR 355, 226 DLR (4th) 1, 207 CCC (3d) 353, 37 CR (6th) 204 R v J.M.H., 2011 SCC 45, [2011] 3 SCR 197 R v M.J.B., 2015 ABCA 146, 395 DLR (4th) 197 R v Walle, 2012 SCC 41, [2012] 2 SCR 438 Regina Housing Authority v Y.A., 2018 SKQB 70 Rohatyn v Ebel, 2012 SKQB 459, 408 S......