R.A. v. Her Majesty The Queen
- Citation
- 2018 SCC 13
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 23 March 2018
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment Rendered on March 23, 2018
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 23 March 2018
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment Rendered on March 23, 2018
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The majority dismissed the appeal because the trial judge's reasons, viewed in context, adequately addressed the evidence as a whole and the live issues, providing a sufficient basis for the credibility findings and upholding the conviction.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld by majority. Justice Gascon dissenting and would have allowed the appeal.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction upheld
02
Material facts
Parties
R.A.
Appellant Counsel: Howard L. KrongoldHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Rachel Young; Alexander Alvaro03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment Rendered on March 23, 2018
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge failed to resolve a critical inconsistency in the complainant's evidence
- 02
Whether the trial judge sufficiently explained why he accepted the complainant's evidence and rejected the accused's evidence
- 03
Whether the reasons were adequate to permit meaningful appellate review
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The trial judge failed to address and resolve a critical inconsistency in the complainant's evidence and failed to explain why he accepted the complainant's evidence and rejected the accused's evidence, rendering the reasons insufficient for appellate review.
- Respondent
- The trial judge's analysis reflected a careful and sensitive approach to the evidence as a whole; his reasons were responsive to the live issues and the parties' key arguments and were sufficient to support the conviction.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law principles of appellate review and criminal evidence law
Trial judges must provide reasons sufficient to show why credibility findings were made and to permit meaningful appellate review.
- 02
Criminal appellate jurisprudence; Court of Appeal precedent
Appellate courts defer to trial judge's credibility findings if reasons demonstrate that the evidence was considered as a whole and live issues were addressed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The majority dismissed the appeal because the trial judge's reasons, viewed in context, adequately addressed the evidence as a whole and the live issues, providing a sufficient basis for the credibility findings and upholding the conviction.
Obiter and limits
- Justice Gascon dissented and would have allowed the appeal for the reasons of Justice Trotter of the Court of Appeal
- The majority relied substantially on the Court of Appeal's analysis that the trial reasons were responsive to the key issues and arguments
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld by majority. Justice Gascon dissenting and would have allowed the appeal.
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction upheld
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 23 March 2018
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 23 March 2018
R.A. v. Her Majesty The Queen Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2018-03-23 Neutral citation 2018 SCC 13 Report [2018] 1 SCR 307 Case number 37757 Judges Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Rowe, Malcolm On appeal from Ontario Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. R.A., 2018 SCC 13, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 307 Appeal heard: March 23, 2018 Judgment rendered: March 23, 2018 Docket: 37757 Between: R.A. Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (para.
1) Moldaver J. (Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ. concurring) R. v. R.A., 2018 SCC 13, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 307 R.A. Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. R.A. 2018 SCC 13 File No.: 37757. 2018: March 23. Present: Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Criminal law — Trial — Judgments — Reasons for judgment — Sufficiency of reasons — Accused convicted of sexual interference — Accused arguing on appeal that trial judge failed to resolve critical inconsistency in complainant’s evidence and failed to explain why he accepted complainant’s evidence and rejected accused’s evidence — Court of Appeal holding that trial judge’s analysis reflected careful and sensitive approach to evidence as a whole and that trial judge’s reasons were responsive to live issues in case and to parties’ key arguments — Conviction upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Gillese, Huscroft and Trotter JJ.A.), 2017 ONCA 714, 355 C.C.C. (3d) 400, [2017] O.J. No. 4772 (QL), 2017 CarswellOnt 14114 (WL Can.), affirming the conviction entered by Tausendfreund J., 2015 ONSC 7494, [2015] O.J. No. 6791 (QL), 2015 CarswellOnt 19536 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed, Gascon J. dissenting. Howard L. Krongold, for the appellant. Rachel Young and Alexander Alvaro, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] Moldaver J. — A majority of the Court would dismiss the appeal, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal. Justice Gascon, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal for the reasons of Justice Trotter. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Abergel Goldstein & Partners, Ottawa. Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.