R. v. Osolin, (1993) 162 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 17, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 162 N.R. 1 (SCC);[1993] SCJ No 135 (QL);26 CR (4th) 1;[1993] 4 SCR 595;62 WAC 81;19 CRR (2d) 93;1993 CanLII 54 (SCC);38 BCAC 81;162 NR 1;109 DLR (4th) 478;86 CCC (3d) 481;[1993] ACS no 135

R. v. Osolin (1993), 162 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Stephen William Osolin (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario and The Attorney General of Quebec (intervenors)

(No. 22826)

Indexed As: R. v. Osolin

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

December 16, 1993.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and kidnapping following a jury trial. He appealed both convictions.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 7 B.C.A.C. 181; 15 W.A.C. 181, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal 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 - Cross-examination - A sexual assault com­plainant's medical records were admitted at trial for an expert to consider them re­specting the complainant's competency to testify - Defence counsel sought to cross-examine on a note in the records respect­ing the complainant's concern that her behaviour might have influenced the accused and she was having second thoughts about the case - The trial judge refused cross-examination because the records were admitted for the limited purpose of determining competency - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the cross-examination should have been allowed (within guidelines established by the court), to ensure a fair trial - The denial of this opportunity justified a new trial - See paragraphs 1 to 47.

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 - Cross-examination - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed generally the importance of cross-examination as a fundamental aspect of a fair trial - See paragraphs 23 to 26 - The court also discussed the limi­tations on the right to cross-examine, including limitations in sexual assault cases - The court summarized the prin­ciples set forth previously by the court in R. v. Seaboyer respecting the cross-exam­ination of sexual assault complainants - See paragraphs 27 to 36.

Civil Rights - Topic 3138

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to jury - The Criminal Code, s. 265(4), set out when a jury must be instructed on the defence of mistaken belief respecting consent - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a trial judge must decide whether the defence met the threshold requirement of having an air of reality before the judge must charge the jury respecting the defence - The require­ment in s. 265(4) that a trial judge deter­mine the threshold requirement of an air of reality did not violate the right to a jury guaranteed by s. 11(f) of the Charter - See paragraphs 84 to 87.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to fair trial - Cross-examination - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4909

Presumption of innocence - Circumstances not infringing presumption - The Supreme Court of Canada, per Cory, J., stated that "... all criminal defences must meet a threshold requirement of sufficient evi­dence, or in other words, an air of reality, before the trial judge should leave them with a jury. In my view this does not violate the presumption of innocence" - See paragraph 77.

Civil Rights - Topic 4909

Presumption of innocence - Circumstances not infringing presumption - The Criminal Code, s. 265(4), set out when a jury must be instructed on the defence of mistaken belief respecting consent - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the defence must meet the threshold requirement of having an air of reality before a judge must charge the jury respecting the defence - The court held that the "air of reality" threshold in s. 265(4) did not violate the presumption of innocence (Charter, s. 11(d)) - "While it creates an evidentiary burden on the accused in the sense that he must raise sufficient evidence to give the defence an air of reality to justify its presentation to the jury, the burden of proving all of the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt rests squarely with the Crown" - See paragraphs 77 to 83.

Criminal Law - Topic 137

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to cross-examine - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3133 and second Medi­cine - Topic 3090 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 673

Sexual assault - Jury charge - The Crimi­nal Code, s. 265(4), set out when a jury must be instructed on the defence of mis­taken belief respecting consent - The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted s. 265(4), holding that there was a two step procedure in determining whether a jury should be charged on this defence - First, the judge must review all the evidence and decide if it is sufficient to warrant putting the defence to the jury (i.e., whether the defence has an air of reality), and second, if the evidence meets that threshold, the judge must put the defence to the jury - The court discussed the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to consider a defence of mistaken belief in consent and what evidentiary burden was imposed by s. 265(4) - See paragraphs 51 to 71.

Criminal Law - Topic 673

Sexual assault - Jury charge - The accused allegedly kidnapped and sexually assaulted the complainant - The judge did not charge the jury on the defence of mistaken belief in consent because the defence was unavailable on the basis of the accused's evidence alone - The appeal court ruled that the judge erred, but held that the defence had no air of reality because of the kidnapping - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that the trial judge erred in finding that the defence was un­available on the basis of the accused's evidence alone, but the appeal court erred in ruling that there could be no air of reality to the defence because of the kid­napping - Where there was no previous or separate kidnapping conviction, the kid­napping could not be the basis for reject­ing the defence - See paragraph 76.

Criminal Law - Topic 673

Sexual assault - Jury charge - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3138 and second Civil Rights - Topic 4909 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 674

Sexual assault - Defences - Mistake of fact - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3138 , second Civil Rights - Topic 4909 and first and second Criminal Law - Topic 673 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 675

Sexual assault - Evidence and proof - See both Civil Rights - Topic 3133, second Civil Rights - Topic 4909 and first Criminal Law - Topic 673 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1422

Assaults - Defence - Consent - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 673 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding defences - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 4909 ].

Medicine - Topic 3090

Relation with patient - Charts and records - Confidentiality - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 3133 ].

Medicine - Topic 3090

Relation with patient - Charts and records - Confidentiality - L'Heureux-Dubé, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a dis­senting judgment, discussed the issue of confidentiality of medical records in the context of whether cross-examination should be allowed respecting a com­plainant's medical records in sexual assault cases - See paragraphs 153 to 224.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Pappajohn, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; 32 N.R. 104, refd to. [paras. 15, 222].

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 223, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 918; 75 N.R. 6; 20 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Laybourn, Bulmer and Illingworth, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 782; 75 N.R. 271, refd to. [paras. 18, 135].

R. v. Anderson (1938), 70 C.C.C. 275 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Rewniak (1949), 93 C.C.C. 142 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Abel v. R. (1955), 23 C.R. 163; 115 C.C.C. 119 (Que. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Lindlau (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 47 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Titus, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 259; 46 N.R. 477, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117, refd to. [paras. 24, 112, 189].

R. v. Anandmalik (1984), 6 O.A.C. 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Giffin (1986), 69 A.R. 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Wallick (1990), 69 Man.R.(2d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Potvin, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 525; 93 N.R. 42; 21 Q.A.C. 258; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341, refd to. [paras. 27, 193].

R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714; 128 N.R. 321; 49 O.A.C. 83, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Parnerkar, [1974] S.C.R. 449, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Faid, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 265; 46 N.R. 461; 42 A.R. 308; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 33 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 51].

Kelsey v. R., [1953] 1 S.C.R. 220, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Squire, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 13; 10 N.R. 25; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 497, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616; 4 N.R. 277, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Brisson, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 227; 44 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Aalders, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 482; 154 N.R. 161; 55 Q.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Haughton (D.) (1992), 60 O.A.C. 291; 11 O.R.(3d) 621 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Guthrie (1985), 8 O.A.C. 277; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Morgan, [1976] A.C. 182 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 69, 222].

Bratty v. Northern Ireland (Attorney Gen­eral), [1963] A.C. 386 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 69, 135].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 1; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 289; 42 C.R.(3d) 113, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Lee Chun-Chuen, [1963] 1 All E.R. 73 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 97].

Boran v. Wenger, [1942] O.W.N. 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Ignat (1965), 53 W.W.R.(N.S.) 248 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

Majcenic v. Natale, [1968] 1 O.R. 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

Jones v. National Coal Board, [1957] 2 All E.R. 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Brouillard, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 39; 57 N.R. 168; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Turlon (1989), 32 O.A.C. 396; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Valley (1986), 13 O.A.C. 89; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1986] 1 S.C.R. xiii; 67 N.R. 159; 15 O.A.C. 240, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256, refd to. [para. 123].

Yuill v. Yuill, [1945] 1 All E.R. 183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

Toohey v. Metropolitan Police Commis­sioner, [1965] 1 All E.R. 506; [1965] A.C. 595 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 153].

R. v. Hawke (1975), 22 C.C.C.(2d) 19 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 153].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 161].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 161].

McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271; 12 C.C.L.T.(2d) 225; 7 C.P.C.(3d) 269, refd to. [para. 164].

Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; [1992] 4 W.W.R. 577; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1; 68 B.C.L.R.(2d) 29; 92 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. Dersch (W.W.) (1993), 158 N.R. 375; 33 B.C.A.C. 269; 54 W.A.C. 269, refd to. [para. 165].

R. v. Ross (K.) (1993), 121 N.S.R.(2d) 242; 335 A.P.R. 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 202].

R. v. O'Connor (1992), 18 C.R.(4th) 98 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 202].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 88]; sect. 8 [para. 158]; sect. 11(d) [para. 77 et seq.]; sect. 11(f) [para. 84 et seq.]; sect. 15, sect. 28 [para. 32].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 265(4) [para. 48]; sect. 276 [paras. 29, 30, 194]; sect. 276.1, sect. 276.2, sect. 276.3, sect. 276.4 [para. 30]; sect. 277 [paras. 28, 189].

Criminal Code Amendment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 38, sect. 2 [paras. 30, 91, 93, 189].

Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, gen­erally [para. 162].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bryant, Alan W., The Issue of Consent in the Crime of Sexual Assault (1989), 68 Can. Bar Rev. 94, p. 149 [para. 142].

Calgary Herald (July 6, 1993), Assault Cases: Women's Groups Seek Tighter Rein on Defence Questioning, p. A12 [para. 202].

Canada, Report of Joint Task Force by Department of Communications and Department of Justice, Privacy and Computers (Ottawa, 1972), generally [para. 163].

Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group of Attorneys General Officials on Gender Equality in the Canadian Justice System, Gender Equality in the Canadian Justice System: Summary Document and Proposals for Action (1992), pp. 13 [para. 32]; 18 [para. 34].

Ferguson, Gerry A., and John C. Bouck, Canadian Criminal Jury Instructions (2nd Ed.), vol. 1 (1989), p. 4.12-2 [para. 98].

Globe and Mail (July 15, 1993), B.C. psychiatrist refusing to hand over file: Fears releasing confidential therapy data would hurt patient who alleges sex abuse, p. A7 [para. 202].

Globe and Mail (May 15, 1993), Confi­dentiality: Balancing Justice and Medical Ethics, p. D3 [para. 202].

Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed. 1992), vol. 2, p. 48-15 [para. 81].

Holmstrom, Linda Lytle, and Ann Wolbert Burgess, The Victim of Rape: Institu­tional Reactions (1983), generally [para. 34].

MacKinnon, Catharine A., Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989), p. 175 [para. 34].

McCormick's Handbook on the Law of Evidence (2nd Ed. 1972), p. 93, para. 45 [para. 170]; p. 438 [para. 180].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (3rd Ed. 1990), p. 11-32 [para. 193].

Ontario, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Confidentiality of Health Information (1980), vol. 2, p. 91 [para. 163].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Tillers Revision, 1983), vol. 1A, pp. 968 [para. 51]; 969 [paras. 27, 51, 180]; 975 [para. 27]; 976 [para. 64].

Wigmore, John Henry, Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (3rd Ed. 1940), vol. 2, pp. 585, 586, para. 492 [para. 170].

Williams, John M., Mistake of Fact: The Legacy of Pappajohn v. The Queen (1985), 63 Can. Bar Rev. 596, pp. 611, 612 [para. 96].

Counsel:

John D. McAlpine, Q.C., and Paul R. Bennett, for the appellant;

Elizabeth Bennett, for the respondent;

Donna R. Valgardson and Nancy L. Irving, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Susan Chapman, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Jacques Gauvin and Daniel Grégoire, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec.

Solicitors of Record:

McAlpine & Horod, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

The Department of Justice, Ste-Foy, Que­bec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec.

This appeal was heard on June 17, 1993, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on December 16, 1993, in both official languages, including the fol­lowing opinions:

Cory, J. (Major, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 90;

Iacobucci, J. (concurring reasons) - see paragraph 91;

Sopinka, J. (concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 92 to 99;

Lamer, C.J.C. (concurring reasons) - see paragraphs 100 to 103;

McLachlin, J., dissenting (La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 104 to 145;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting (La Forest, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 146 to 225.