R. v. Parrott (W.), (2001) 198 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 260 (SCC)

• Judge: L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 198 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 260 (SCC);2001 SCC 3;198 Nfld & PEIR 260;265 NR 304;595 APR 260;150 CCC (3d) 449;39 CR (5th) 255;[2001] CarswellNfld 13;[2001] SCJ No 4 (QL);JE 2001-299;48 WCB (2d) 293;[2001] 1 SCR 178;194 DLR (4th) 427

R. v. Parrott (W.) (2001), 198 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 260 (SCC);

    595 A.P.R. 260

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JA.047

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Walter Parrott (respondent)

(No. 27305; 2001 SCC 3)

Indexed As: R. v. Parrott (W.)

Supreme Court of Canada

L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.

January 26, 2001.

Summary:

An accused was charged with kidnapping and sexual assault causing bodily harm. The complainant was mentally disabled. The Crown sought to adduce hearsay evidence based on testimonial incompetence. The trial judge admitted the hearsay evidence. The accused was convicted of kidnapping and of the lesser offence of assault causing bodily harm. He appealed.

The Newfoundland Court of Appeal, Wells, C.J.N., dissenting, in a decision re­ported at 175 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 89; 537 A.P.R. 89, held that the hear­say evidence should not have been admitted. Wells, C.J.N., and Green, J.A., held that the kid­napping charge could nonetheless be sus­tained. Conse­quent­ly, the appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered only with respect to the assault charge. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, LeBel, L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., dissent­ing, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5420

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Out of court statements - [See Evidence - Topic 1527 ].

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Exceptions and exclusions - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - Asserting testimo­nial incompetence, the Crown sought to adduce a complain­ant's out of court state­ments as an excep­tion to the hearsay rule - ­Accord­ing to expert testimony at the voir dire, the men­tally disabled complain­ant's unde­r­standing of spoken English was that of a four year old - She could neither un­der­stand the nature of an oath nor com­muni­cate her evi­dence - The trial judge, rely­ing only on the expert testi­mony, ad­mitted the evidence where it was necessary and reli­able - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the expert evi­dence had been improp­erly admitted at the voir dire - The trial judge should have assessed the complain­ant's testimonial capacity under s. 16 of the Evidence Act - Having dispensed with hearing the com­plainant and the expert testimony having been improperly admit­ted, there was no evidence on which to exercise a discretion to admit the out of court statements - Alternatively, these statements were not necessary.

Evidence - Topic 5542

Witnesses - Competency and compellabil­ity - Competency - Mental compe­tency - [See Evidence - Topic 1527 and Evi­dence - Topic 7018 ].

Evidence - Topic 5554

Witnesses - Competency and compellabil­ity - Competency - Expert evidence - [See Evidence - Topic 1527 and Evi­dence - Topic 7018 ].

Evidence - Topic 7018

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Special knowledge and ex­peri­ence - What constitutes - The Crown sought to adduce a mentally disabled com­plainant's out-of-court statements based on testimonial incompetence (Evi­dence Act, s. 16) - A voir dire was held - Relying only on expert medical testi­mony, the trial judge admitted the hearsay evi­dence where it was necessary and reliable - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the expert evidence was improperly admit­ted at the voir dire - Testimonial compet­ence was a matter specifically assigned to the trial judge under s. 16 - Whether a com­plainant was able to testify was a mat­ter on which a trial judge could form his or her own opinion - It was not a matter outside the experience and knowl­edge of a judge/ jury - The trial judge's decision ought to have been based on direct obser­vation of the complainant unless excused by evi­dence of potential trauma or other excep­tional circumstances - See para­graphs 53 to 63.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 3, 35].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(2d) 257, refd to. [paras. 3, 63].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. W.J.F., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 569; 247 N.R. 62; 180 Sask.R. 161; 205 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 4, 75].

R. v. F.J.U., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764; 186 N.R. 365; 85 O.A.C. 321; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Rockey (S.E.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 829; 204 N.R. 214; 95 O.A.C. 134; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [paras. 6, 66].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 7, 56].

Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hopital St-Ferdinand et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 211; 202 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 402; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 419, refd to. [paras. 18, 52].

R. v. D.D., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275; 259 N.R. 156; 136 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [paras. 21, 74].

R. v. J.P. (1992), 150 N.R. 379; 54 Q.A.C. 82; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 276 (C.A.), affd. [1993] 1 S.C.R. 469; 150 N.R. 378; 54 Q.A.C. 81; 20 C.R.(4th) 397, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 251; 39 B.C.L.R. 201, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291; 197 N.R. 321; 144 Sask.R. 81; 124 W.A.C. 81; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 77].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 16 [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 189 to 201 [para. 3].

Counsel:

Wayne Gorman, for the appellant;

Robin Reid, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Department of Justice, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the appellant;

Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission, St. John's, Newfoundland, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 27, 2000, by L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on January 26, 2001, and the following opinions were filed:

LeBel, J., dissenting (L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 27;

Binnie, J. (Major, Bastarache and Arbour, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 28 to 89.