R. v. W.B.C., (2000) 130 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Weiler, Abella and Goudge, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: February 16, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2000), 130 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

R. v. W.B.C. (2000), 130 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.051

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

(C30563)

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

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Abella and Goudge, JJ.A.

February 16, 2000.

Summary:

W.C.B., aged 60, was convicted of one count of sexual assault against his niece's daughter (who was aged 10 at the time of the assault). W.C.B. appealed his conviction.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Goudge, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5037

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Evidentiary error -The Ontario Court of Appeal reviewed when the curative proviso contained in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code would be appropriate to confirm a conviction when there has been an evidentiary error by the trial judge - See paragraphs 63 to 77.

Criminal Law - Topic 5037

Appeals - Indictable offences - Dismissal of appeal if no prejudice, substantial wrong or miscarriage results - Evidentiary error -At W.C.B.'s sexual assault of a minor trial, the Crown sought to admit a transcript relating to W.C.B.'s guilty plea in 1991 to another sexual assault - The Crown also tendered a statement given by K.B., the 1991 sexual assault complainant - The trial judge declined to admit the transcript, however, the judge allowed the officer who received K.B.'s statement, to read it into evidence - The accused was convicted - He appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Although the trial judge erred by allowing K.B.'s statement to be read into evidence, he also erred in failing to admit the 1991 trial transcript - Because the evidence from the two sources was essentially the same, the court concluded that the error was not fatal and that the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code should be invoked - See paragraphs 1 to 77.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - At W.C.B.'s sexual assault of a minor trial, the Crown tendered a statement given by K.B., a complainant in a 1991 sexual assault in which W.C.B. pleaded guilty - The statement amounted to similar fact evidence and was used as circumstantial evidence of the accused's guilt - The ac­cused was convicted - He appealed argu­ing, inter alia, that the statement should not have been admitted - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed - The statement was not a proper exception to the hearsay rule be­cause the requirement of necessity was not met - Particularly, there was no evidence to indicate that K.B. was not available to give viva voce evidence at the trial - See paragraphs 4 and 5.

Criminal Law - Topic 5214.7

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Circumstantial evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5365

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Copy of documents - Admissi­bility - The Ontario Court of Appeal re­viewed the criteria necessary for the ad­missibility of a public document into a criminal trial - See paragraphs 32 to 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 5372

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Documents in possession of third parties (incl. audio tapes etc.) - [See Crim­inal Law - Topic 5392 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5392

Evidence and witnesses - Trials - Use of evidence in one trial in another - At W.C.B.'s sexual assault of a minor trial, the Crown sought to admit a transcript relating to W.C.B.'s guilty plea in 1991 to another sexual assault - The transcript had not been signed by the court reporter but defence counsel stated that it was not necessary for the reporter to give evidence of the transcript's authenticity - Nonethe­less, the trial judge declined to admit the transcript where the Crown failed to give defence counsel seven days' notice as required in s. 23 of the Canada Evidence Act - The Ontario Court of Appeal af­firmed that the transcript could not be admitted under this section - However, the court further concluded that the transcript should have been admitted at "common law" - Particularly, the evidence was an exception to the hearsay rule in that it was both necessary and reliable, and it would not render the trial unfair - See paragraphs 3 and 25 to 61.

Evidence - Topic 1158

Relevant facts, relevance and materiality - Facts relevant to the issue - Prior similar occurrences - [See second Criminal Law -Topic 5037 and Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Evidence - Topic 1257

Relevant facts, relevance and materiality - Similar acts - To prove course of conduct -[See second Criminal Law - Topic 5037 and Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Evidence - Topic 1527

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Where admission of hearsay necessary and evidence reliable - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5213 and Criminal Law - Topic 5392 ].

Evidence - Topic 1700

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Official statements - Reports -General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5365 ].

Evidence - Topic 3092

Documentary evidence - Secondary evi­dence - General - Transcripts - [See Crim­inal Law - Topic 5392 ].

Evidence - Topic 3203

Documentary evidence - Admission - General - Reading into record - [See sec­ond Criminal Law - Topic 5037 and Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Evidence - Topic 3246

Documentary evidence - Admission under Evidence Act - Notice requirements - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5392 ].

Evidence - Topic 3358

Documentary evidence - Judicial proceed­ings - Transcript of evidence from prior trial - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5392 ].

Evidence - Topic 3752

Documentary evidence - Public documents - General - Conditions precedent to ad­missibility - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5392 ].

Evidence - Topic 5206

Witnesses - Corroboration - General prin­ciples - Similar fact evidence as cor­roboration - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5037 and Criminal Law - Topic 5213 ].

Practice - Topic 5295.1

Trials - General - Transcripts - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5392 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531; 113 N.R. 53; 41 O.A.C. 353; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 92; 79 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Tatomir (1989), 99 A.R. 188; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 289; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 42 C.R.(3d) 113, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 1].

Idziak v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 631; 144 N.R. 327; 59 O.A.C. 241; 97 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 65; 17 C.R.(4th) 161; 12 C.R.R.(2d) 77; 9 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 1].

R. v. Keegstra (J.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 381; 180 N.R. 120; 169 A.R. 50; 97 W.A.C. 50, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 1].

R. v. A.P. (1996), 92 O.A.C. 376; 109 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590; 15 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Park, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 64; 37 N.R. 501; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 385; 21 C.R.(3d) 182; 26 C.R.(3d) 164; 122 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Dietrich (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 49; 11 C.R.N.S. 22 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1970] S.C.R. xi; 1 C.C.C. 68, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Hawkins (K.R.) and Morin (C.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; 204 N.R. 241; 96 O.A.C. 81; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 2 C.R.(5th) 245, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Adgey (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 177 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Lucas (1983), 9 C.C.C.(3d) 71 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477; 30 C.R.(3d) 289; 140 D.L.R.(3d) 612, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Korponey, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 41; 44 N.R. 103; 26 C.R.(3d) 343; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 354; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 65, refd to. [para. 55].

Korponay v. Canada (Attorney General) - see R. v. Korponey.

R. v. Evans (C.D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 653; 158 N.R. 278; 145 A.R. 81; 55 W.A.C. 81; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 57].

English v. Richmond and Pulver; Laing v. Richmond and Pulver, [1956] S.C.R. 383; 3 D.L.R.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 59, footnote 2].

R. v. Brown (No. 2), [1963] S.C.R. vi; [1963] 3 C.C.C. 341, refd to. [para. 59, footnote 2].

R. v. Deakin (1912), 19 C.C.C. 274; 2 D.L.R. 282 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 2].

Marcotte v. R. (1949), 97 C.C.C. 310; 9 C.R. 209 (Que. C.A.), affd. [1950] S.C.R. 352; 98 C.C.C. 81, refd to. [para. 59, footnote 2].

Cromarty v. Monteith (1957), 8 D.L.R.(2d) 112 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 59, foot­note 2].

Charlton, Re, [1969] 1 O.R. 706; 3 D.L.R.(3d) 623 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 2].

R. v. Falconer and Mann, [1970] 4 C.C.C. 362; 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 155 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 59, footnote 2].

R. v. Wildman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 311; 55 N.R. 27; 5 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Haughton (D.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 516; 179 N.R. 1; 79 O.A.C. 319; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 99, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. L.K.W. (1999), 126 O.A.C. 39; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Jackson and Davy (1991), 51 O.A.C. 92; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

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. 68].

Colpitts v. R., [1965] S.C.R. 739, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. John, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 476; 63 N.R. 141; 11 O.A.C. 391, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Rockey (S.E.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 829; 204 N.R. 214; 95 O.A.C. 134; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Tran (Q.D.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 951; 170 N.R. 81; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 380 A.P.R. 81; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 218, refd to. [para. 96].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, sect. 23(1) [para. 25]; sect. 28 [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Archbold, John Frederick, Criminal Plead­ing, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases (43rd Ed. 1988), p. 1055 [para. 39].

Ewart, J. Douglas, Documentary Evidence in Canada (1984), pp. 153 [para. 33]; 183 [para. 39].

Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed.) (1999 Supp.), p. 14:2180 [para. 59].

Martin Committee Report - see Ontario, Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions, Report of (Mar­tin Committee Report).

McCormack, Charles Tilford, Handbook on the Law of Evidence (4th Ed. 1992), pp. 288, 289 [para. 36].

Ontario Attorney Gen­eral's Advisory Com­mittee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions, Report of (Martin Commit­tee Report) (1993), pp. 324, 325 [para. 52].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 287 [para. 60]; 291 [paras. 49, 60].

Wigmore on Evidence, vols. 4, pp. 547 to 549, para. 1232 [para. 39]; 7, p. 647, paras. 2109, 2110 [para. 38].

Counsel:

Randolv Schwartz, for the respondent;

Sharon E. Lavine, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on October 20, 1999, before Weiler, Abella and Goudge, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On February 16, 2000, the judgment was delivered for the Court of Appeal and the following opinions were filed:

Weiler, J.A. (Abella, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 77;

Goudge, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 78 to 107.