R. v. L. (D.O.)

R. v. L. (D.O.)

Section 715.1 is constitutional: videotaped statements of complainants under 18 made within a reasonable time and adopted at trial are admissible without violating ss.7 or 11(d) because adoption at trial plus opportunity to cross-examine and judicial discretion to edit/exclude ensure reliability and a fair trial; contemporaneous cross-examination is not constitutionally required; the age limit is not arbitrary; trial judge's factual findings and exercise of discretion were proper and conviction is reinstated.

Citation
[1993] 4 SCR 419
Parties
Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: D.O.L.; Intervener: Attorney General of Canada; Intervener: Attorney General for Ontario; Intervener: Attorney General of Quebec; Intervener: Attorney General for New Brunswick; Intervener: Attorney General for Saskatchewan; Intervener: Attorney General for Alberta
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 November 1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba; Judgment on Constitutional Questions Rendered From the Bench; Appeal Allowed
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal set aside; conviction reinstated; s.715.1 of the Criminal Code declared constitutional
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.11(d), Videotaped Evidence, Child Witnesses, Hearsay, Prior Consistent Statements, Cross Examination Timing, Judicial Discretion, Age Limit of Complainant, Reasonable Time for Recording
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Evidence Law Charter S.7 Charter S.11(d) Videotaped Evidence Child Witnesses Hearsay +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Appellant

D.O.L.

Respondent

Attorney General of Canada

Intervener

Attorney General for Ontario

Intervener

Attorney General of Quebec

Intervener

Attorney General for New Brunswick

Intervener

Attorney General for Saskatchewan

Intervener

Attorney General for Alberta

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Manitoba; Judgment on Constitutional Questions Rendered From the Bench; Appeal Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.715.1 of the Criminal Code infringes s.7 of the Charter (principles of fundamental justice/fair trial)
  2. 2 Whether s.715.1 infringes s.11(d) of the Charter (fair and public hearing/presumption of innocence)
  3. 3 Whether videotaped statement admitted under s.715.1 offends hearsay rule

Ratio Decidendi

Section 715.1 is constitutional: videotaped statements of complainants under 18 made within a reasonable time and adopted at trial are admissible without violating ss.7 or 11(d) because adoption at trial plus opportunity to cross-examine and judicial discretion to edit/exclude ensure reliability and a fair trial; contemporaneous cross-examination is not constitutionally required; the age limit is not arbitrary; trial judge's factual findings and exercise of discretion were proper and conviction is reinstated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal set aside; conviction reinstated; s.715.1 of the Criminal Code declared constitutional

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba set aside