R. v. W.B.B., (1996) 187 A.R. 179 (CA)

• Judge: Bracco, Conrad and Côté, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 06, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 187 A.R. 179 (CA)

R. v. W.B.B. (1996), 187 A.R. 179 (CA);

    127 W.A.C. 179

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. W.B.B. (accused/appellant)

(Appeal No. 95-15934)

Indexed As: R. v. W.B.B.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Bracco, Conrad and Côté, JJ.A.

September 6, 1996.

Summary:

An accused appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching by a person in a position of trust.

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

Criminal Law - Topic 4863

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Failure to determine issue - An accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a young person - The complainant's and her mother's evidence contained numerous contradictions on key issues - The trial judge gave brief reasons convicting the accused which concluded by stating that not only must he assess the words spoken by each witness, he must assess the demeanour of each witness - The trial judge did not expressly reject the accused's evidence and did not mention the accused's admitted alibi - The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial, because the trial judge erred in failing to consider the key issue of confirmatory evidence.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - An accused appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a young person - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that although it would not have convicted the accused, it would not enter an acquittal, where a jury properly charged on the evidence could have reasonably convicted the accused - See paragraphs 13 to 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 4866

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeals - Misapprehension of evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4863 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4868

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Failure to consider evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4863 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4957

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misapprehension of evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4863 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5020

Appeals - Indictable offences - Setting aside verdicts - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4865 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5402

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Assessment of - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that "... demeanour is rarely a sufficient reason alone to reject evidence, still less a sufficient reason to accept evi­dence whose content raises doubts." - See paragraph 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 5404

Evidence and witnesses - Witnesses - Credibility - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5402 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Chan (1989), 100 A.R. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. C.D.H. (1992), 125 A.R. 239; 14 W.A.C. 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Davis (D.J.) (1995), 165 A.R. 243; 89 W.A.C. 243 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Pelletier (V.A.) (1995), 165 A.R. 138; 89 W.A.C. 138 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; [1987] 6 W.W.R. 97; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 59 C.R.(3d) 108; 17 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 43 D.L.R.(4th) 424, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Burke (J.)(No. 3) (1996), 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147; 46 C.R.(4th) 195 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Leonard (1990), 37 O.A.C. 269; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255; 133 D.L.R.(3d) 546; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 193, appld. [para. 20].

R. v. McMaster (R.A.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 740; 194 N.R. 278; 181 A.R. 199; 116 W.A.C. 199; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. D.R., H.R. and D.W. (1996), 197 N.R. 321; 144 Sask.R. 81; 124 W.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811; 41 N.R. 606; [1983] 1 W.W.R. 193; 27 C.R.(3d) 304; 136 D.L.R.(3d) 89; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Bevan and Griffith, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 599; 154 N.R. 245; 64 O.A.C. 165; 104 D.L.R.(4th) 180; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 310; 21 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Albert (B.) (1993), 64 O.A.C. 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Pizzardi (R.G.) (1994), 72 O.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. F.C. (1996), 88 O.A.C. 303; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 461 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 47; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 25 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. V.K. (1991), 4 C.R.(4th) 338 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Doz (1984), 52 A.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Meddoui (1990), 111 A.R. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Robinson (1991), 114 A.R. 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Kootenay (C.M.) (1994), 149 A.R. 41; 63 W.A.C. 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Métivier (1977), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 483 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Doblanko, [1946] 3 W.W.R. 438 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Norman (D.L.) (1993), 68 O.A.C. 22; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 153; 26 C.R.(4th) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Richardson (1992), 57 O.A.C. 54; 9 O.R.(3d) 194; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Morin (K.M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286; 142 N.R. 141; 131 A.R. 81; 25 W.A.C. 81; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 16 C.R.(4th) 291, refd to. [para. 87].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McWilliams, Peter K., Canadian Criminal Evidence (3rd Ed.), para. 26:70000 [para. 77].

Counsel:

G. Tomljanovic, for the respondent;

A. Hepner, Q.C., for the appellant.

This appeal was heard before Bracco, Conrad and Côté, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On September 6, 1996, Côté, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.