R. v. Wright (N.A.), 2013 MBCA 109

• Judge: Hamilton, Monnin and Burnett, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: April 26, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2013 MBCA 109;(2013), 303 Man.R.(2d) 26 (CA)

R. v. Wright (N.A.) (2013), 303 Man.R.(2d) 26 (CA);

      600 W.A.C. 26

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.002

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Nicholas Alfred Wright (accused/appellant)

(AR 12-30-07809; 2013 MBCA 109)

Indexed As: R. v. Wright (N.A.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Hamilton, Monnin and Burnett, JJ.A.

December 19, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to three years. The accused appealed. At issue were the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons and the reasonableness of the verdict. The trial judge's credibility findings were key to both grounds of appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The trial judge's reasons were inadequate and while the inadequacy of the reasons, standing alone, did not constitute reversible error, when they were read in the context of the entire proceedings, the logic of the trial judge's findings of fact or inferences drawn from the evidence was not discernible and the verdict was therefore unreasonable.

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.

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "To determine whether reasons are adequate, it is necessary to perform a contextual review of the evidence, the submissions of counsel and the live issues at trial (R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51 at paras. 55-57, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3). When deciding whether a verdict is reasonable, it is necessary to perform a similar analysis - the verdict is to be measured against the totality of the evidence adduced at trial. And where the verdict is reached by a trial judge without a jury, the reasonableness of the verdict may also be assessed' by scrutinizing the logic of the judge's findings of fact or inferences drawn from the evidence admitted at trial' (R. v. Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40 at paras. 15, 69, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3)." - See paragraph 2.

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The accused appealed his sexual assault conviction - At issue were the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons and the reasonableness of the verdict - The trial judge's credibility findings were key to both grounds of appeal - The Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that the focus was not whether the trial judge made appropriate credibility findings - The issue was whether his reasons adequately explained why he did not have a reasonable doubt in light of his credibility findings - The court held that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate and while the inadequacy of the reasons, standing alone, did not constitute reversible error, when they were read in the context of the entire proceedings, the logic of the trial judge's findings of fact or inferences drawn from the evidence was not discernible and the verdict was therefore unreasonable - The court set aside the conviction.

Criminal Law - Topic 4865

Appeals - Indictable offences - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 4684 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Sinclair (T.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3; 418 N.R. 282; 268 Man.R.(2d) 225; 520 W.A.C. 225; 2011 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 25].

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; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Beaudry (A.), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190; 356 N.R. 323; 2007 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. R.P., [2012] 1 S.C.R. 746; 429 N.R. 361; 2012 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. N.H.P., [2013] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 13; 2013 MBCA 30, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Gagnon (L.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621; 347 N.R. 355; 2006 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Braich (A.) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903; 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1, 2002 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Futic (V.), [2013] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 26; 2013 MBCA 50, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Vuradin (F.) (2013), 446 N.R. 53; 553 A.R. 1; 583 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Mabior (C.L.) (2010), 258 Man.R.(2d) 166; 499 W.A.C. 166; 2010 MBCA 93, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Flores (R.B.) (2013), 288 Man.R.(2d) 173; 564 W.A.C. 173; 2013 MBCA 4, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Grant (1975), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 317 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Dillabough (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 482 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. P.L., [1995] O.J. No. 854 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Counsel:

J.L. Ostapiw, for the appellant;

R.N. Malaviya, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 26, 2013, by Hamilton, Monnin and Burnett, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Burnett, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on December 19, 2013.