Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

R. v. Dickson

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The trial judge erred in admitting or using evidence of the previous sexual relationship between the complainant and the appellant; under the facts, the Court of Appeal correctly ordered a new trial and the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial is affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Case remitted for a new trial

02

Material facts

Parties

Alexander Lee Dickson

Appellant Counsel: Marcel La Flamme

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent Counsel: Judith Bowers Q.C.; Robert Frater

Amounts and remedies

  • Case Number: 23,580

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Sexual Assault / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (appeal as of Right)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant argued the trial judge properly admitted evidence of the prior sexual relationship as relevant to consent and to support the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent and that the conviction should be upheld.
Respondent
Respondent argued the admission and use of the prior sexual relationship evidence was improper, prejudicial and rendered the conviction unsafe, justifying the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Dickson, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 153)

    Evidence of prior sexual activity is not automatically admissible to prove consent; it must be relevant and its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect.

  2. 02

    Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Dickson, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 153)

    The defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent requires a proper evidentiary foundation; prior sexual history may be relevant but must be assessed carefully for misuse.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The trial judge erred in admitting or using evidence of the previous sexual relationship between the complainant and the appellant; under the facts, the Court of Appeal correctly ordered a new trial and the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal.

Obiter and limits

  • Court emphasized limits on admissibility of prior sexual acts evidence in sexual assault trials.
  • Court stressed the necessity to balance probative value against prejudicial effect when considering prior sexual history evidence.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial is affirmed.

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Case remitted for a new trial

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 2 February 1994

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· 2 February 1994

[1994] 1 SCR 153

R. v. Dickson Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1994-02-02 Report [1994] 1 SCR 153 Case number 23580 Judges Lamer, Antonio; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; McLachlin, Beverley; Major, John C. On appeal from Yukon Subjects Criminal law Evidence Notes SCC Case Information: 23580 Decision Content R. v. Dickson, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 153 Alexander Lee Dickson Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Dickson File No.: 23580. 1994: February 2. Present: Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, McLachlin and Major JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for the yukon territory Criminal law ‑‑ Sexual assault ‑‑ Consent ‑‑ Admissibility of evidence ‑‑ Evidence of prior sexual acts with accused ‑‑ Defence of honest but mistaken belief of consent ‑‑ Whether evidence of other acts of intercourse admissible. Evidence ‑‑ Criminal law ‑‑ Sexual assault ‑‑ Consent ‑‑ Admissibility of evidence ‑‑ Evidence of prior sexual acts with accused ‑‑ Defence of honest but mistaken belief of consent ‑‑ Whether evidence of other acts of intercourse admissible. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for the Yukon Territory (1993), 81 C.C.C. (3d) 224, 21 C.R. (4th) 8, allowing an appeal from a judgment of Lilles C.J.T.C. and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed. Marcel La Flamme, for the appellant. Judith Bowers, Q.C., and Robert Frater, for the respondent. The judgment

of the Court was delivered orally by Lamer C.J. ‑‑ This is an appeal as of right. We are all of the view that the trial judge erred in the admission or the use of the evidence of the previous sexual relationship between the complainant and the appellant and that, under the circumstances of this case, the order by the Court of Appeal for a new trial was properly made. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Marcel La Flamme, Whitehorse. Solicitor for the respondent: The Department of Justice, Whitehorse.

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.