R. v. Saulnier (L.M.), 2005 NSCA 54

• Judge: Hamilton, Chipman and Fichaud, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: March 16, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2005 NSCA 54;(2005), 231 N.S.R.(2d) 342 (CA)

R. v. Saulnier (L.M.) (2005), 231 N.S.R.(2d) 342 (CA);

 733 A.P.R. 342

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.035

Leon Michael Saulnier (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CAC 209291; 2005 NSCA 54)

Indexed As: R. v. Saulnier (L.M.)

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Hamilton, Chipman and Fichaud, JJ.A.

March 31, 2005.

Summary:

The accused appealed his convictions for sexual assault (two counts), kidnapping, unlawful confinement and uttering threats. He argued, inter alia, that the trial judge erred by not applying the correct test in order to determine whether the Crown had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 4351

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt - The accused was convicted of five offences, including two counts of sexual assault - A central issue was credibility - The trial judge did not refer to the principle of reasonable doubt nor the presumption of innocence - He did not refer to the three-step analysis in R. v. W.D. (S.C.C.) - No reference was made to whether or not doubt arose in the trial judge's mind, either from the evidence of the accused alone or from the evidence as a whole - The Crown argued that the trial judge was very experienced and, although he did not articulate precisely the R. v. W.D. three-step analysis, it should be presumed not only that he knew the law, but applied it correctly - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal - The court was prepared to presume the trial judge's knowledge of the law, but, without more, it would not presume that he applied it - The trial judge's oversight was fatal to the findings of guilt - See paragraphs 15 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 184 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Brown (J.R.) (1994), 132 N.S.R.(2d) 224; 376 A.P.R. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. J.M. (2002), 207 N.S.R.(2d) 262; 649 A.P.R. 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Gushue (S.N.) (1992), 117 N.S.R.(2d) 152; 324 A.P.R. 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. D.C.S. (2000), 184 N.S.R.(2d) 299; 573 A.P.R. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. J.K., [1999] N.S.J. No. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Robicheau (M.D.) (2001), 193 N.S.R.(2d) 42; 602 A.P.R. 42 (C.A.), affd. [2002] 2 S.C.R. 643; 289 N.R. 217; 216 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 645 A.P.R. 1; 165 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 5 C.R.(4th) 351, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Donald Fraser, for the appellant;

Peter Rosinski, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on March 16, 2005, before Hamilton, Chipman, and Fichaud, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Chipman, J.A., delivered the following decision on March 31, 2005.