R. v. T. (S.),

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Monnin, Burnett and Mainella, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2015 MBCA 36
• Citation: (2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 22 (CA),2015 MBCA 36,[2015] MJ No 112 (QL),[2015] M.J. No 112 (QL),319 Man.R.(2d) 22,319 ManR(2d) 22,(2015), 319 ManR(2d) 22 (CA)
• Date: 14 April 2015
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)

R. v. S.T. (2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 22 (CA);

      638 W.A.C. 22

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.005

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. T. (S.) (accused/appellant)

(AR 14-30-08260; 2015 MBCA 36)

Indexed As: R. v. S.T.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, Burnett and Mainella, JJ.A.

April 14, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual interference, sexual exploitation and sexual assault in relation to his teenage step-granddaughter. The accused appealed, arguing that the judge erred in law as to the application of the burden of proof by convicting the accused simply on the basis of a "credibility contest".

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial.

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 675

Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct - Sexual offences - Rape or sexual assault - Evidence and proof - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5221 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Direction regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5221 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5221 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5221

Evidence and witnesses - Burden of proof - Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - The accused was convicted of sexual offences - He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in applying the burden of proof in a he said/she said situation - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court was not satisfied that the trial judge correctly applied the criminal burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt - The reasons did not adequately articulate the basis for the convictions - Simple mention of the D.W. analysis was not determinative - It was not clear from the reasons whether the verdicts were based on the manifest error that the case turned on which of the two competing versions of events he preferred - A verdict based simply on the comparison of stories improperly shifted the burden of proof to the accused and did not respect the principle of reasonable doubt.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. J.H.S., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152; 375 N.R. 67; 265 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 848 A.P.R. 203; 2008 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Vuradin (F.), [2013] 2 S.C.R. 639; 446 N.R. 53; 553 A.R. 1; 583 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 6].

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. 6].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. C.L.Y., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5; 370 N.R. 284; 225 Man.R.(2d) 146; 419 W.A.C. 146; 2008 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. A.J.S. (2011), 280 O.A.C. 395; 2011 ONCA 566, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. J.J.R.D. (2006), 218 O.A.C. 37; 215 C.C.C.(3d) 252 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2007), 370 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

S.T., on his own behalf;

C. St. Croix, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 14, 2015, before Monnin, Burnett and Mainella, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following decision was pronounced on the same date, for the court, by Mainella, J.A.