R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, (1991) 48 O.A.C. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 22, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 48 O.A.C. 81 (SCC)

R. v. Seaboyer (1991), 48 O.A.C. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Steven Seaboyer (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent), and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General of Quebec, The Attorney General for Saskatchewan, The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund et al.

Nigel Gayme (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent), and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General of Quebec, The Attorney General for Saskatchewan, The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund et al.

Indexed As: R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.

August 22, 1991.

Summar y:

The accused were charged separately with unrelated sexual assaults. At their prelimi­nary hearings both accused tried to introduce evidence of the sexual conduct of the com­plainants on other occasions. The prelimi­nary inquiry judges ruled that such evidence was inadmissible pursuant to ss. 246.6 and 246.7 (the rape shield provisions), of the Criminal Code (now ss. 276 and 277). The accused were committed to stand trial. The accused applied to quash their committals on the ground that the preliminary inquiry judges exceeded their jurisdiction and deprived the accused of their right to make full answer and defence by enforcing the rape shield provisions.

The Ontario Supreme Court, per Galligan, J., allowed the application to quash the committals on the ground that ss. 276 and 277 violated the Charter. Galligan, J., remitted the cases to the preliminary inquiry judges for a ruling on the evidentiary issues unhampered by the statutory provisions. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (1987), 20 O.A.C. 345, allowed the appeal and reversed the orders of Galligan, J., holding that the preliminary inquiry judges lacked the jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of the sections in question. Therefore, the preliminary inquiry judges had not erred in applying the sec­tions, and the orders quashing the committals were set aside. The Court of Appeal opined that s. 276 was capable of contravening an accused's Charter rights in some circum­stances. The members of the court differed however, on what the consequences would be where such a Charter violation occurred. The court ordered that the cases proceed to trial. The accused appealed. The following constitutional questions were posed:

1. Is s. 276 or 277 of the Criminal Code inconsistent with ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Char­ter; and

2. If s. 276 or 277 is inconsistent with the Charter, can that inconsistency be jus­tified on the basis of s. 1 of the Charter?

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Ontario Court of Appeal that the cases proceed to trial. The court held that s. 276 was inconsistent with ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, but s. 277 was not. Further the inconsistency could not be justified by s. 1 of the Charter.

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting in part (Gonthier, J., concurring), agreed that the appeal should be dismissed and that s. 277 was constitutional. The dissenters however strongly disagreed with the majority's find­ings respecting s. 276.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - The Criminal Code, s. 277, excluded evidence of sexual reputation for the purpose of challenging or supporting the credibility of the complainant in sexual assault proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 277 did not infringe the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter - See paragraphs 45, 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 3157

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to just and fair trial - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8348 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Charter - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - The Criminal Code, s. 276, excluded, in sexual offence proceedings, evidence of the sexual activity of the complainant with any per­son other than the accused, except in cer­tain enumerated circumstances - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 276 was contrary to ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter in that the legislation offended the principles of fundamental justice underly­ing a fair criminal trial - Section 276 was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 10 to 78.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Charter - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal to determine whether a law is constitutional. That jurisdiction must be found in the legislation which defines the powers of the body ..." - See paragraph 106.

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Charter - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3528 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Charter - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8

Charter - Denial of rights - Remedies -Statute deemed inapplicable (incl. doctrine of constitutional exemption) - The Supreme Court of Canada declared s. 276 (the rape shield provisions) of the Criminal Code to be contrary to the Charter and not justified under s. 1 - The court, assuming without deciding that techniques such as reading down and constitutional exemption were open to the court, held that the doc­trine of constitutional exemption could not be appropriately applied in this case - In the result the court struck down s. 276 under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 - See paragraphs 74 to 86.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.18

Charter - Denial of rights - Reading down - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8586

Charter - Practice - Method of raising Charter issues - Constitutional questions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3528 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8586

Charter - Practice - Method of raising Charter issues - Charter review pre­limi­nary inquiry ruling - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3601 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8586

Charter - Practice - Method of raising Charter issues - Prohibition - Where Charter issue not necessary to disposition of case - [See Courts - Topic 126.1 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2505

Determination of validity of statutes - General principles - Doctrine of constitu­tional exemption - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2507

Determination of validity of statutes - General principles - Reading down - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8380.8 ].

Courts - Topic 126.1

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial deci­sions - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Supreme Court of Canada - General - Two accused appealed their committals for trials for sexual offences, arguing that ss. 276 and 277 of the Criminal Code (the rape shield provisions) were contrary to the Charter - When the appeal reached the Supreme Court of Canada, the court ruled on the constitutional validity of these provisions although it was not strictly necessary to do so - The court stated however that "this case should not be used as a precedent to support a Charter chal­lenge in cases where the Charter issue is not necessary for a disposition of the case" - See paragraph 118.

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences - Evidence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - The Criminal Code, s. 276, excluded, in sexual offence proceedings, evidence of the sexu-al activ­ity of the complainant with any person other than the accused, except in certain enumerated circumstances - The Supreme Court of Canada struck down s. 276 as being contrary to ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter - The court set out the prin­ciples and procedures now applicable to the admission of this type of evidence and cited examples of admissible evidence - See paragraphs 87 to 98.

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences - Evidence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8348 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 689

Sexual offences - Evidence - Sexual conduct or character of complainant - [See Criminal Law - Topic 890 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 690

Sexual offences - Evidence - Sexual reputation of complainant - The Criminal Code, s. 277, excluded evidence of sexual reputation for the purpose of challenging or supporting the credibility of the com­plainant in sexual assault proceed­ings - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 277 did not infringe the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter - See paragraphs 45, 73.

Criminal Law - Topic 3528

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - Whether court of competent jurisdiction under Charter - At their preliminary inquiries on sexual assault charges, two accused argued that ss. 276 and 277 of the Criminal Code (the rape shield provisions) were contrary to the Charter - The pre­liminary inquiry judges ruled that they did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the impugned provisions were contrary to the Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that judges on a prelimi­nary inquiry do not have the power to decide the constitu­tionality of legislation relating to evidence - The court held that constitu­tional ques­tions are best left to the trial judge - See paragraphs 99 to 104.

Criminal Law - Topic 3529

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - Con­stitutional questions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3528 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3601

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that normally Charter review of the decision of a preliminary inquiry judge will take place at trial, however it may be possible to seek earlier review in cases where there is no other remedy for a wrong - The court stated further that "... appeals from rulings on preliminary inquiries are to be discouraged" - See paragraphs 111 to 114.

Evidence - Topic 1026

Relevant facts, relevance and materiality - Admissibility - Prejudicial evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a trial judge has power to exclude relevant evi­dence tendered by the Crown on the basis that its probative value is outweighed by the prejudice which may flow from its admis­sion - The court held further that a trial judge also has power to exclude defence evidence, but the prejudice must substan­tially outweigh the value of the evidence before a judge can exclude evidence relevant to a defence allowed by law - See paragraphs 34 to 43.

Cases Notice d:

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask. R. 1, refd to. [paras. 15, 16, 244].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 36 M.V.R. 240; 18 C.R.R. 30; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [paras. 15, 26, 238].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [paras. 17, 85].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161; 3 C.R.(3d) 30, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Duke, [1972] S.C.R. 917, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272, refd to. [paras. 29, 38].

R. v. Scopelliti (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 524; 63 C.C.C.(2d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 29, 214, 215].

Solicitor General of Canada and Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al. v. Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Confi­dentiality of Health Records in Ontario et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 494; 38 N.R. 588, refd to. [paras. 29, 63, 247].

R. v. Dunbar and Logan (1982), 68 C.C.C.(2d) 13 (Ont.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 29, 63, 247].

Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Alford v. United States (1931), 282 U.S. 687 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341, refd to. [paras. 34, 196, 225].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 34, 228, 238, 240].

R. v. Sweitzer, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 949; 42 N.R. 550; 37 A.R. 294, folld. [para. 38].

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. 38].

State v. Jalo (1976), 557 P.2d 1359, refd to. [para. 48].

State v. Carpenter (1989), 447 N.W.2d 946 (Minn. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Commonwealth v. Majorana, 470 A.2d 80 (Pa.), refd to. [para. 49].

People v. Mikula (1978), 269 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

State ex rel. Pope v. Superior Court (1976), 545 P.2d 946 (Ariz.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. LeGallant (1985), 47 C.R.(3d) 170 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Green (1990), 76 C.R.(3d) 119 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

State v. Pulizzano (1990), 456 N.W.2d 325 (Wisc.), refd to. [para. 49].

Commonwealth v. Black (1985), 487 A.2d 396 (Pa. S.Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

State v. Oliveira (1990), 576 A.2d 111 (R.I.), refd to. [para. 49].

State v. Carver (1984), 678 P.2d 842 (Wash. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

State v. Howard (1981), 426 A.2d 457 (N.H.), refd to. [para. 49].

State v. Reinart (1989), 440 N.W.2d 503 (N.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Summitt v. State (1985), 697 P.2d 1374 (Nev.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Wald (1989), 94 A.R. 125; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Winfield v. Commonwealth (1983), 301 S.E.2d 15 (Va.), refd to. [para. 50].

State v. Shoffner (1983), 302 S.E.2d 830 (N.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

State v. Gonzalez, 757 P.2d 925 (Wash.), refd to. [para. 50].

State v. Hudlow (1983), 659 P.2d 514 (Wash.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 57].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [paras. 75, 251].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 92 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [paras. 76, 262].

R. v. Video­flicks et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 85].

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks et al.

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks et al.

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. 85].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C. (3d) 97, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [paras. 106, 112, 113, 115].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340, refd to. [paras. 106, 109].

R. v. Forsythe, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 268; 32 N.R. 520, refd to. [paras. 112, 176].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 131].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man. R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Keegs­tra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [paras. 152, 255].

R. v. Timm, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 315; 37 N.R. 204; 29 A.R. 509, refd to. [para. 170].

R. v. Laliberté (1877), 1 S.C.R. 117, refd to. [para. 178].

Gross v. Brodrecht (1897), 24 O.A.R. 687, refd to. [para. 178].

R. v. Konkin, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 388; 47 N.R. 124; 44 A.R. 10, refd to. [para. 180].

R. v. Camp (1977), 36 C.C.C.(2d) 511 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 183].

R. v. Firkins (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 227 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1977] 2 S.C.R. vii; 17 N.R. 179, refd to. [para. 183].

Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122; 87 N.R. 163; 32 O.A.C. 259, refd to. [paras. 191, 265].

R. v. Oquataq (1985), 18 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [paras. 197, 206].

R. v. Coombs (1985), 56 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 152; 168 A.P.R. 152; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 356 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 206].

R. v. Laybourn, Bulmer and Illingworth, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 782; 75 N.R. 271, refd to. [paras. 217, 218, 219].

R. v. Pappajohn, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; 32 N.R. 104, refd to. [paras. 217, 218].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [paras. 241, 242, 245].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 244].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 244].

R. v. Swain (1991), 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 214].

R. v. Dersch et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 247].

Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 14 C.R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137, refd to. [para. 254].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Co-lumbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 256].

Reference Re ss.193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 481; 109 N.R. 81; 68 Man. R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 259].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man. R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 267].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 10, 74 et seq.]; sect. 7, sect. 11(d) [para. 10 et seq.]; sect. 15 [para. 255]; sect. 24(1) [paras. 107, 115, 116]; sect. 28 [para. 255].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [paras. 8, 83, 106].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 139 [para. 183]; sect. 139(1) [para. 189]; sect. 142 [para. 174 et seq.]; sect. 246.4 [para. 189]; sect. 246.6, sect. 246.7 [para. 1 et seq.].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 276, sect. 277 [para. 1 et seq.].

Criminal Code Amendment Act (Re Sex­ual Offences), S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c. 125, generally [para. 187].

Criminal Law Amendment Act, S.C. 1974-75-76, c. 93, sect. 8 [para. 174].

United States Constitution, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments [para. 30].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adler, Zsuzsanna, The Relevance of Sex­ual History Evidence in Rape: Problems of Subjective Interpretation, [1985] Crim. L.R. 769, p. 778 [para. 221].

Backhouse, Constance and Lorna Schoenroth, A Comparative Survey of Canadian and American Rape Law (1983), 6 Can.-U.S. L.J. 48, p. 81 [para. 149].

Berger, Vivian, Man's Trial, Woman's Tribulation: Rape Cases in the Courtroom (1977), 77 Colum. L. Rev. 1, p. 69 [para. 90].

Borigida, Eugene, and Phyllis White, Social Perception of Rape Victims: The Impact of Legal Reform (1978), 2 Law and Hum. Behav. 339, p. 349 [para. 159].

Boyle, Christine, Sexual Assault (1984), p. 154 [para. 187].

Boyle, Christine, Section 142 of the Crim­inal Code: A Trojan Horse? (1981), 23 Crim. L.Q. 253, pp. 258-259 [para. 180]; 265 [para. 235].

Brickman, Julie, and John Briere, Inci­dence of Rape and Sexual Assault in an Urban Canadian Population (1985), 7 Int'l J. of Women's Stud. 195, generally [para. 135].

Canada, Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths, Sexual Offences Against Children (1984), gen­erally [para. 135].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Cor­roboration: A Study Paper Prepared by the Law of Evidence Project (1975), p. 7 [para. 171].

Canada, Solicitor General, Canadian Urban Victimization Survey: Reported and Unreported Crimes (1984), p. 10 [para. 136].

Canada, Solicitor General, Canadian Urban Victimization Survey: Female Victims of Crime (1985), pp. 1-2 [para. 151]; 7 [para. 140].

Catton, Katherine, Evidence Regarding the Prior Sexual History of an Alleged Rape Victim - Its Effect on the Perceived Guilt of the Accused (1975), 33 U. of T. Fac L. Rev. 165, p. 173 [paras. 162, 230].

Check, James V.P. and Neil M. Malamuth, Sex Role Stereotyping and Reactions to Depictions of Stranger Versus Acquaint­ance Rape (1983), 45 J. of Pers. and Soc. Psych. 344, pp. 344-345 [para. 141].

Clark, Lorenne, M.G., and Debra J. Lewis, Rape: The Price of Coercive Sexuality (1977), generally [para. 149]; p. 57 [para. 135].

Clark, L. and D. Lewis, A Study of Rape in Canada: Phases "C" and "D": Report to the Donner Foundation of Canada (1976), p. 57 [para. 146].

Cross on Evidence (7th Ed. 1990), pp. 60 [para. 226]; 224 [para. 171]; 281 [para. 170].

Dawson, T. Brettel, Sexual Assault Law and Past Sexual Conduct of the Primary Witness: The Construction of Relevance (1988), 2 C.J.W.L. 310, pp. 316 [para. 198]; 326 [para. 134]; 327 [para. 147]; 330 [para. 248]; 333 [para. 245].

Doherty, David H., "Sparing" the Com­plainant "Spoils" the Trial (1984), 40 C.R.(3d) 55, generally [para. 29]; pp. 57 [para. 58]; 58 [para. 29]; 65 [paras. 52, 53]; 66 [para. 54]; 67 [para. 31].

Elliot, D.W., Rape Complainants' Sexual Experience with Third Parties, [1984] Crim. L.R. 4, pp. 7 [paras. 49, 50]; 8 [para. 50]; 14 [para. 53].

Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rules of Evidence, Report (1982), gen­erally [para. 221]; pp. 66-67 [para. 167]; 72 [para. 180]; 73 [para. 266].

Feild, Hubert S., and Leigh B. Bienen, Jurors and Rape (1980), generally [para. 154]; pp. 76 [para. 141]; 95 [para. 149]; 118-119, 139 [para. 158].

Galvin, Harriett, R., Shielding Rape Vic­tims in the State and Federal Courts: A Proposal for the Second Decade (1986), 70 Minn. L. Rev. 763, pp. 773-774 [para. 70]; 778 [para. 212]; 782 [para. 215]; 792-793 [para. 166]; 796 [para. 21]; 809 [para. 89]; 812 [para. 55]; 814 [para. 58]; 818-823 [para. 49]; 831-833 [para. 50]; 834 [paras. 50, 210]; 835-848 [para. 50]; 876-902 [para. 69]; 903 [para. 91]; 904 [paras. 91, 93].

Gordon, Margaret T., and Stephanie Riger, The Female Fear (1989), generally [para. 151].

Grant, Yola Althea, The Penetration of the Rape Shield: R. v. Seaboyer and R. v. Gayme in the Ontario Court of Appeal (1989-1990), 3 C.J.W.L. 592, pp. 600 [para. 18]; 601 [para. 43].

Hansard, House of Commons Debates, July 7, 1981, pp. 11300 [para. 185]; 11301 [para. 190]; Nov. 19, 1975, p. 9252 [para. 231].

Haxton, David, Rape Shield Statutes: Con­stitutional Despite Unconstitutional Ex­clusions of Evidence, [1985] Wis. L. Rev. 1219, pp. 1271-1272 [para. 238].

Holmstrom, Lynda Lytle, and Ann Wolbert Burgess, The Victim of Rape: Institu­tional Reactions (1983), pp. 43-44 [para. 148]; 58 [para. 136]; 174-199 [para. 138].

Hoskins, Jeffry G., The Rise and Fall of the Corroboration Rule in Sexual Offence Cases (1983), 4 Can. J. Fam. L. 173, pp. 177-178 [para. 171].

Howard, Colin, Criminal Law (3d Ed. 1977), p. 149 [para. 156].

Informa Inc., Sexual Assault: Measuring the Impact of the Launch Campaign (1988), generally [para. 154].

La Free, Gary D., Variables Affecting Guilty Pleas and Convictions in Rape Cases: Toward a Social Theory of Rape Processing (1980), 58 Social Forces 833, generally [para. 160].

La Free, Gray D., Barbara F. Reskin and Christy A. Visher, Jurors' Responses to Victims' Behaviour and Legal Issues in Sexual Assault Trials (1985), 32 Soc. Prob. 389, pp. 392, 397, 400 [para. 161].

Legrand, Camile E., Rape and Rape Laws: Sexism in Society and Law (1973), 61 Cal. L. Rev. 919, p. 939 [para. 135].

MacKinnon, Catharine A., Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989), pp. 142-143 [para. 164].

Marshall, Patrick, Sexual Assault, The Charter and Sentencing Reform (1988), 63 C.R.(3d) 216, p. 217 [para. 136].

McCormick, Charles Tilford, McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence (2nd Ed. 1972), pp. 438 [para. 37]; 439, 440 [paras. 37, 227].

McCormick, Charles Tilford, McCormick on Evidence (3rd Ed. 1984), pp. 572-573 [para. 215]; 574-575 [para. 212].

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (3rd Ed. 1990), p. 35 [para. 196].

Ordover, Abraham P., Admissibility of Patterns of Similar Sexual Conduct: The Unlamented Death of Character for Chastity (1977), 63 Cornell L. Rev. 90, pp. 108 [para. 229]; 112-119 [para. 50].

Paciocco, David M., The Charter and the Rape Shield Provisions of the Criminal Code: More About Relevance and the Constitutional Exemptions Doctrine (1989), 21 Ottawa L. Rev. 119, p. 146 [para. 82].

Renner, K. Edward, and Suresh Sajhpaul, The New Sexual Assault Law: What Has Been Its Effect? (1986), 28 Can. J. Crim. 407, pp. 408, 409 [para. 147].

Schiff, S., Evidence in the Litigation Pro­cess (3rd Ed. 1988), vol. 2, p. 1010 [para. 226].

Sheehy, Elizabeth A., Canadian Judges and the Law of Rape: Should the Charter Insulate Bias? (1989), 21 Ottawa L. Rev. 741, pp. 741 [para. 156]; 755 [paras. 198, 203]; 756-757 [para. 203]; 774-775 [paras. 229, 237]; 782 [para. 266].

Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 77, April 22, 1982, pp. 77:29 [para. 184]; 77:46 [para. 192].

Stanley, Marilyn, G., The Experience of the Rape Victim with the Criminal Jus­tice System Prior to Bill C-127 (1985), p. 20 [para. 146].

Stephen, James Fitzjames, Sir, A Digest of the Law of Evidence (12th Ed. 1946), art. 1 [para. 196].

Tanford, J. Alexander, and Anthony J. Boccino, Rape Victim Shield Laws and the Sixth Amendment (1980), 128 U. Pa. L. Rev. 544, pp. 569 [para. 227]; 584-585 [para. 49]; 586-589 [para. 50].

Vandervort, Lucinda, Mistake of Law and Sexual Assault: Consent and Mens Rea (1987), 2 C.J.W.L. 233, pp. 258 [para. 144]; 262 [para. 198].

Weinstein, J., and M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence (1976), generally [para. 229].

Wigmore, J.H., Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1970), vol. 3A, p. 736 [para. 156].

Williams, Kristen, M., The Prosecution of Sexual Assaults (1978), p. 42 [para. 137].

Counsel:

Marc Rosenberg and Keith E. Wright, for the appellant Seaboyer;

Jan-Paul Waldin and Allan Herman, for the appellant Gayme;

Jeff Casey and Rosella Cornaviera, for the respondent;

J.E. Thompson, Q.C., and Adelyn L. Bow­land, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Canada;

Jacques Gauvin, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Ross MacNab, for the intervenor, the At­torney General for Saskatchewan;

Daniel V. MacDonald, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Elizabeth Shilton and Anne Derrick, for the intervenor, the Women's Legal Edu­cation and Action Fund et al.

Solicitors of Record:

Keith E. Wright, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant Seaboyer;

Waldin, de Kenedy, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant Gayme;

The Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, for the respondent;

The Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Attorney Gen­eral of Canada;

Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy, Que­bec, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

The Deputy Attorney General, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

McMillan, Binch, Toronto, Ontario, for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

Cavalluzzo, Hayes & Shilton, Toronto, Ontario, for the Women's Legal Educa­tion and Action Fund et al.

This appeal was heard on March 26 and 27, 1991, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on August 22, 1991, including the following opinions:

McLachlin, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 119;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (Gonthier, J., con­curring), dissenting - see paragraphs 120 to 273.