R. v. P.E.C.,

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Citation: (2005), 211 B.C.A.C. 48 (SCC),2005 SCC 19,211 BCAC 48,JE 2005-1638,196 CCC (3d) 351,AZ-50330695,332 NR 293,[2005] 1 SCR 290
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 19 March 2005

R. v. P.E.C. (2005), 211 B.C.A.C. 48 (SCC);

    349 W.A.C. 48

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: [2005] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.052

P.E.C. (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (As of Right) (respondent)

(30561; 2005 SCC 19; 2005 CSC 19)

Indexed As: R. v. P.E.C.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

March 19, 2005.

Summary:

Counts 1, 2 and 3 against the accused were, respectively: (1) sexual assault on S.P., (2) touching for a sexual purpose the body of S.P., a person aged under 14, and (3) inviting S.P. to touch the body of the accused. Counts 6, 7 and 8 against the accused were, respectively: (6) sexual assault on J.C., (7) touching for a sexual purpose the body of J.C., a person aged under 14, and (8) inviting J.C. to touch the body of the accused. The trial judge found the accused guilty on all counts. (The accused was acquitted on two other counts, Counts 4 and 5). The accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 204 B.C.A.C. 122; 333 W.A.C. 122, Southin, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal respecting Counts 1, 2 and 3 and ordered a new trial. The court, Oppal, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal respecting Counts 6, 7 and 8. The accused appealed respecting counts 6, 7 and 8. The Crown did not appeal respecting counts 1, 2 and 3.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the 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 editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 4300

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Respecting credibility of witnesses (incl. accused) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4367 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4367

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding separation of evidence respecting several counts -The trial judge found the accused guilty of six counts of sexual offences against two complainants aged under 14, S.P. and J.C. - The accused appealed - At issue was whether the trial judge erred by failing to deal with the evidence on each count separately when she considered the evidence relating to other counts in assessing the credibility of the accused in respect of a particular set of counts - The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the trial judge made no such error - In assessing the credibility of each witness, including the accused, the trial judge was entitled to consider the totality of the evidence given by that witness - In doing so here, she did not engage in a prohibited line of reasoning contrary to the rule against similar fact evidence - See paragraph 1.

Criminal Law - Topic 4944

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - When available - General - The trial judge found the accused guilty of six counts of sexual offences against two complainants aged  under  14,  S.P.  and  J.C . - The British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial on the three counts respecting S.P. but upheld the verdict on the three counts respecting J.C. - The Crown did not appeal against the new trial order respecting S.P. - The accused appealed with respect to J.C. - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal with respect to J.C. where: (1) the trial judge's findings of credibility were so intertwined that it was difficult to identify the logic that led to the divided result in the Court of Appeal; and (2) a new trial had already been ordered with respect to S.P. and that order had not been appealed - See paragraph 2.

Criminal Law - Topic 5212

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - General (incl. procedure) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4367 ].

Counsel:

D. Mitchell Foster, for the appellant;

Ursula Botz, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Not disclosed.

This appeal was heard on March 19, 2005, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on March 19, 2005, by Charron, J.