Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

R. v. Chatillon

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 Fitzgerald

Olivier Chatillon

Respondent Counsel: Nicolas Lemyre‑Cossette; Marie‑Pier Boulet

Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense

Intervener Counsel: Cynthia Lacombe

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal (sexual Assault; Evidence Admissibility) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal Rendered

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 01

    Common law (Wigmore jurisprudence)

    Wigmore criteria govern protection of confidential communications and their admissibility

  2. 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.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 15 March 2023

2023 SCC 7

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.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.