R. v. T.C.F., (2006) 243 N.S.R.(2d) 237 (CA)

• Judge: Cromwell, Saunders and Fichaud, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 08, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2006), 243 N.S.R.(2d) 237 (CA);2006 NSCA 42

R. v. T.C.F. (2006), 243 N.S.R.(2d) 237 (CA);

    772 A.P.R. 237

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.019

T.C.F. (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CAC 232410; 2006 NSCA 42)

Indexed As: R. v. T.C.F.

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Cromwell, Saunders and Fichaud, JJ.A.

April 11, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of 12 sexual offences by a jury. The accused appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, acquitted the accused on one count and ordered a new trial respecting the remaining counts.

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.

Editor's note: for a related case see 234 N.S.R.(2d) 374; 745 A.P.R. 374 (C.A.).

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - The accused was convicted by a jury of 12 sexual offences involving numerous complainants - Some of the charges dated back to the 1980s - The time from the laying of the charge (April 5, 2002) to the date of sentence (September 17, 2004) was 29 months and 12 days - Eight months of that time elapsed between the conviction and sentencing - The accused did not waive any delays - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the accused's right to a speedy trial (Charter, s. 11(b)) was not violated - The delay in this case was not unreasonable, given the substantial inherent time requirements of the case and the fact the accused was at large throughout the time-frame on a recognizance - See paragraphs 75 to 93.

Criminal Law - Topic 4352.1

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding similar fact evidence - The accused faced a single trial of a multi-count indictment alleging a large number of sexual offences against multiple complainants - The accused was convicted on 12 counts by a jury - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in his instructions concerning the use the jury could make of evidence of one count when considering the others - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on 11 counts - The trial judge wrongly invited the jury to infer guilt from the similarities between counts - He failed to instruct them that only evidence that was admissible on each count could be used when considering the guilt or innocence with respect to that count - Finally, as a result of these misdirections, the charge did not adequately instruct the jury not to engage in propensity reasoning - The court held that the error was not harmless and declined to apply the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) - See paragraphs 23 to 58.

Criminal Law - Topic 4367

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding separation of evidence respecting several counts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4352.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5041

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Where jury charge in error - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4352.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5045

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - What constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4352.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. L.E.D. (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 384 (C.A.), revd. [1989] 2 S.C.R. 111; 97 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Rarru (H.S.) (No. 3), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 165; 197 N.R. 310; 77 B.C.A.C. 14; 126 W.A.C. 14, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. B.M. (1998), 115 O.A.C. 117; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Davis (A.) (2003), 192 B.C.A.C. 179; 315 W.A.C. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Makin v. Attorney-General for New South Wales, [1894] A.C. 57 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. M.H.M. (1994), 132 N.S.R.(2d) 196; 376 A.P.R. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. D.C.S. (2000), 184 N.S.R.(2d) 299; 573 A.P.R. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Schneider (A.) (2004), 228 N.S.R.(2d) 344; 723 A.P.R. 344; 2004 NSCA 151, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. C.M. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 68; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Roy (1998), 125 C.C.C.(3d) 442 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. A.S. (1998), 113 O.A.C. 340; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 320 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. M.D.B (2003), 187 B.C.A.C. 255; 307 W.A.C. 255 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Carosella (N.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 80; 207 N.R. 321; 98 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. La (H.K.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 680; 213 N.R. 1; 200 A.R. 81; 146 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 96].

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, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 100].

Counsel:

Appellant, in person;

Daniel A. MacRury, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 8, 2006, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, by Cromwell, Saunders and Fichaud, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Cromwell, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on April 11, 2006.