R. v. Matthews (C.), (2013) 413 Sask.R. 105 (QB)

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 12, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2013), 413 Sask.R. 105 (QB);2013 SKQB 51

R. v. Matthews (C.) (2013), 413 Sask.R. 105 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.053

Her Majesty the Queen v. Corey Matthews

(2012 NJ No. 27; 2013 SKQB 51)

Indexed As: R. v. Matthews (C.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Dawson, J.

February 12, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was charged that (1) he committed sexual assaults on M., contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code; and (2) being in a position of trust and authority toward M., a person under the age of 18, for a sexual purpose, he touched, directly or indirectly, with a part of his body, a part of the body of M., contrary to s. 153(1)(a) of the Code. The accused was M.'s high school teacher. The accused had also been charged with several counts alleging sexual offences involving three other students, C.A., T.K. and J.M. The Crown had stayed all of those charges because there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction. The Crown sought to call evidence from C.A., T.K. and J.M. as similar fact evidence.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

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 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - [See Evidence - Topic 1256 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5214.4

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - To prove propensity - [See Evidence - Topic 1256 ].

Evidence - Topic 1256

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - To prove criminal conduct - The accused was charged that: (1) he committed sexual assaults on M.; and (2) being in a position of trust and authority toward M., a person under the age of 18, for a sexual purpose, he touched, directly or indirectly, with a part of his body, a part of the body of M. - The accused was M.'s high school teacher - The accused had also been charged with several counts alleging sexual offences involving three other male students, C.A., T.K. and J.M. - The Crown had stayed all of those charges because there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction - The Crown sought to call evidence from C.A., T.K. and J.M. as similar fact evidence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The Crown had not established that the probative value of the similar fact evidence would outweigh its prejudice to the accused - There was a concern about collusion between C.A., T.K. and J.M., albeit innocent collusion, that made their evidence potentially unreliable - Secondly, the probative value of the proffered similar fact was evidence of propensity that was not capable of the double inference contended for by the Crown - The proposed similar fact evidence was negligible on the issue in question, i.e., whether the accused committed the actus reus of the offence of sexual assault on M. - On the other hand, the risk of prejudice was great - It was likely that the evidence of any one of the three witnesses might suggest to the jury that the accused acted inappropriately to the other students or had some propensity in respect of other male students - This was precisely the sort of general disposition reasoning that the similar fact exclusion rule was designed to prevent - Similarities between the evidence of C.A., T.K. or J.M. and the evidence of M., were not so probative on the issues in question as to outweigh the spectre of moral or reasoning prejudice.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 296, affing. (1997), 92 B.C.A.C. 286; 150 W.A.C. 286; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 168 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Blake (R.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 503; 326 N.R. 265; 192 O.A.C. 205; 2004 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Stewart (M.W.) (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 186; 316 W.A.C. 186; 183 C.C.C.(3d) 421; 2004 BCCA 56, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Christie (W.H.M.) (2002), 205 N.S.R.(2d) 131; 643 A.P.R. 131; 2002 NSSC 158, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Buna (M.P.) (2009), 280 B.C.A.C. 42; 474 W.A.C. 42; 249 C.C.C.(3d) 156; 2009 BCCA 536, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Chen (Z.M.), [2008] B.C.A.C. Uned. 145; 2008 BCCA 523, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Conway (V.) (2004), 240 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 62; 711 A.P.R. 62; 2004 NLCA 51, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Litchfield (1991), 119 A.R. 317 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Shearing (I.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33; 290 N.R. 225; 168 B.C.A.C. 161; 275 W.A.C. 161; 2002 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. J.C.B. (2011), 382 Sask.R. 267; 2011 SKQB 333, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Ewanchuk (S.B.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330; 235 N.R. 323; 232 A.R. 1; 195 W.A.C. 1; 169 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Villeda (G.M.) (2011), 502 A.R. 83; 517 W.A.C. 83; 2011 ABCA 85, refd to. [para. 109].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (4th Ed.) (2012 Looseleaf Update), vol. 1, para. 10:10 [para. 49].

Counsel:

Constance Hottinger, for the Crown;

Barry Nychuk, for the accused.

This application was heard before Dawson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following decision on February 12, 2013.