R. v. Chatillon
- Citation
- 2023 SCC 7
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 15 March 2023
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (sexual Assault; Evidence Admissibility) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal Rendered
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 15 March 2023
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (sexual Assault; Evidence Admissibility) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal Rendered
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was allowed because the majority concluded the respondent had consented to disclosure of his admissions, which amounted to a valid waiver of confidentiality and rendered the admissions admissible; accordingly the Court of Appeal's acquittal based on inadmissibility was set aside and the conviction restored.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside; respondent's conviction restored.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside
- Respondent's conviction restored
02
Material facts
Parties
His Majesty The King
Appellant Counsel: Maxime Hébrard; Julien FitzgeraldOlivier Chatillon
Respondent Counsel: Nicolas Lemyre‑Cossette; Marie‑Pier BouletAssociation québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense
Intervener Counsel: Cynthia Lacombe03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (sexual Assault; Evidence Admissibility) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal Rendered
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether admissions made by the accused during a treatment process are confidential and inadmissible under the Wigmore criteria
- 02
Whether the accused consented to disclosure of those admissions such that confidentiality was waived
- 03
Whether the admissions were properly transmitted to and used by police resulting in admissible evidence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown argued the respondent expressly consented to disclosure of his admissions to the director of youth protection and the police, thereby waiving any confidentiality and rendering the admissions admissible.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued the admissions were confidential treatment communications that ought to be excluded under the Wigmore criteria and that their disclosure was not a valid waiver, warranting exclusion and acquittal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law (Wigmore jurisprudence)
Wigmore criteria govern protection of confidential communications and their admissibility
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada reasoning in this judgment
An accused may waive confidentiality by consenting to disclosure; valid consent defeats exclusion of otherwise confidential statements
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was allowed because the majority concluded the respondent had consented to disclosure of his admissions, which amounted to a valid waiver of confidentiality and rendered the admissions admissible; accordingly the Court of Appeal's acquittal based on inadmissibility was set aside and the conviction restored.
Obiter and limits
- The dissent would have dismissed the appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal majority applying Wigmore criteria to exclude the admissions.
- The majority indicated that consent to disclosure is dispositive in the confidentiality analysis and can render statements admissible despite their therapeutic context.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside; respondent's conviction restored.
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside
- Respondent's conviction restored
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 15 March 2023
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· 15 March 2023
R. v. Chatillon Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2023-03-15 Neutral citation 2023 SCC 7 Report [2023] 1 SCR 306 Case number 40331 Judges Wagner, Richard; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas; O’Bonsawin, Michelle On appeal from Quebec Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Chatillon, 2023 SCC 7, [2023] 1 S.C.R. 306 Appeal Heard: March 15, 2023 Judgment Rendered: March 15, 2023 Docket: 40331 Between: His Majesty The King Appellant and Olivier Chatillon Respondent - and - Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense Intervener Official English Translation Coram: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and O’Bonsawin JJ. Judgment Read By: (paras. 1 to 3) Wagner C.J. Majority: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and O’Bonsawin JJ. Dissent: Côté J. His Majesty The King Appellant v. Olivier Chatillon Respondent and Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense Intervener Indexed as: R. v. Chatillon 2023 SCC 7 File No.: 40331. 2023: March 15. Present: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and O’Bonsawin JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Admissions — Accused voluntarily making admissions, during treatment process, concerning acts of sexual nature committed by him against child — Admissions sent to director of youth protection and then to police with accused’s consent — Accused charged with sexual assault — Accused filing motion to exclude admissions — Trial judge dismissing motion on ground that application of Wigmore criteria did not result in admissions being inadmissible
— Accused convicted of sexual assault — Majority of Court of Appeal entering acquittal on ground that admissions were inadmissible — Dissenting judge finding that admissions were admissible because accused had expressly waived their confidentiality by consenting to their disclosure — Conviction restored. APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Vauclair, Mainville and Healy JJ.A.), 2022 QCCA 1072, 83 C.R. (7th) 403, [2022] J.Q. no 7757 (QL), 2022 CarswellQue 11441 (WL), setting aside the conviction of the accused for sexual assault and entering an acquittal. Appeal allowed, Côté J. dissenting. Maxime Hébrard and Julien Fitzgerald, for the appellant. Nicolas Lemyre‑Cossette and Marie‑Pier Boulet, for the respondent. Cynthia Lacombe, for the intervener. English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by [1] The Chief Justice — A majority of the Court is of the view that the appeal should be allowed on the sole issue of the respondent’s consent to the disclosure of his admissions, discussed by the dissenting judge at paras. 83‑85 of the reasons (2022 QCCA 1072, 83 C.R. (7th) 403). In the Court’s opinion, this is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. [2] Côté J. would have dismissed the appeal, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal. [3] The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the respondent’s conviction is restored. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Procureur aux poursuites criminelles et pénales, Longueuil. Solicitors for the respondent: Poitras, Fournier, Cossette, Granby; BMD, Laval. Solicitors for the intervener: BMD, Laval.
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.