R. v. S.D.

R. v. S.D.

Majority: The conviction was valid because the trial judge accepted evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence occurred regardless of the exact date and the defence was limited to credibility so the respondent suffered no prejudice from the variance in the indictment; accordingly the Court of Appeal's order...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2011 SCC 14
Parties
Appellant: Her Majesty The Queen; Respondent: S.D.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision reversed; trial judge's verdict restored.
Legal Topics
Sexual Interference, Indictment Particulars (date of Offence), Fair Trial, Variance Between Indictment and Proof
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Procedural Fairness Evidence Sexual Interference Indictment Particulars (date of Offence) Fair Trial Variance Between Indictment and Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant

S.D.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a conviction can stand when the trial judge bases it on a date different from that specified in the indictment
  2. 2 Whether the variance between the indictment and the proof prejudiced the accused and rendered the trial unfair
  3. 3 Whether the evidence accepted at trial satisfied the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt despite the variance

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The conviction was valid because the trial judge accepted evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence occurred regardless of the exact date and the defence was limited to credibility so the respondent suffered no prejudice from the variance in the indictment; accordingly the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial was reversed and the trial verdict restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision reversed; trial judge's verdict restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal set aside