R. v. Kwon
- Citation
- 2025 SCC 11
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 27 March 2025
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (appeal as of Right From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 27 March 2025
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (appeal as of Right From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial because, although the trial judge committed reviewable errors including reliance on stereotypical reasoning and misapprehension of the accused's evidence, those errors did not eliminate all legally admissible evidence that could support a conviction, making an acquittal inappropriate and a new trial the proper remedy.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Order of the Court of Appeal set aside
- New trial ordered
02
Material facts
Parties
His Majesty The King
Appellant Counsel: Anthony B. GereinSoon Hyong Kwon
Respondent Counsel: Matthew J. Schmeling; Elise T. von HolwedeAmounts and remedies
- Majority Judges: 4
- Dissenting Judges: 1
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (appeal as of Right From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge erred by drawing an adverse inference from circumstantial evidence that the complainant lacked capacity to consent
- 02
Whether the trial judge misstated or failed to fairly assess the accused's evidence and defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent
- 03
Whether the trial verdict was unreasonable
- 04
Whether reliance on stereotypical reasoning invalidated the conviction
- 05
Appropriate appellate remedy where trial error is identified (acquittal vs new trial)
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown submitted that the Court of Appeal majority erred in concluding the verdict was unreasonable and that the conviction should be restored or, at minimum, that a new trial be ordered rather than entering an acquittal.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained the trial judge committed reviewable errors, including relying on circumstantial evidence and stereotypical reasoning that negated capacity to consent, such that there was no legally admissible evidence to support a conviction and an acquittal was appropriate (as the Court of Appeal majority held).
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal appellate review principles
A criminal verdict must be reasonable having regard to all of the evidence; appellate courts may overturn unreasonable verdicts.
- 02
Criminal law appellate remedies doctrine
The appropriate appellate remedy depends on whether legally admissible evidence remains that could properly support a conviction; where it does, a new trial may be ordered rather than entering an acquittal.
- 03
Sexual assault jurisprudence and equality principles
Circumstantial evidence and inferences about consent must be assessed without resort to stereotypes and the accused's evidence (including honest but mistaken belief in consent) must be fairly considered.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial because, although the trial judge committed reviewable errors including reliance on stereotypical reasoning and misapprehension of the accused's evidence, those errors did not eliminate all legally admissible evidence that could support a conviction, making an acquittal inappropriate and a new trial the proper remedy.
Obiter and limits
- Courts must guard against stereotypical inferences in sexual‑assault cases when drawing conclusions from circumstantial evidence.
- Appellate courts should tailor remedies to the state of the admissible evidence rather than substitute their own findings where a fair new trial is possible.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered.
- Appeal allowed
- Order of the Court of Appeal set aside
- New trial ordered
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 27 March 2025
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· 27 March 2025
R. v. Kwon Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2025-03-27 Neutral citation 2025 SCC 11 Case number 41322 Judges Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas; O’Bonsawin, Michelle; Moreau, Mary On appeal from Saskatchewan Subjects Criminal law Notes Case in Brief SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Kwon, 2025 SCC 11 Appeal Heard: March 27, 2025 Judgment Rendered: March 27, 2025 Docket: 41322 Between: His Majesty The King Appellant and Soon Hyong Kwon Respondent Coram: Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. Judgment Read By: (paras. 1 to 4) Moreau J. Majority: Martin, Kasirer, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. Dissent: Rowe J. Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports. His Majesty The King Appellant v. Soon Hyong Kwon Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Kwon 2025 SCC 11 File No.: 41322. 2025: March 27. Present: Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for saskatchewan Criminal law — Sexual assault — Elements of offence — Capacity to consent — Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Trial judge drawing inference from circumstantial evidence that complainant lacked capacity to consent to sexual intercourse with accused — Trial judge convicting accused of sexual assault — Court of Appeal unanimously holding that trial judge erred in relying on stereotypical reasoning — Majority of Court of Appeal holding that there was no legally admissible evidence on which accused could be convicted and setting aside conviction and entering acquittal — Dissenting judge agreeing that trial judge erred but holding that new trial would
be appropriate remedy — New trial ordered. APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Barrington-Foote, Drennan and Tholl JJ.A.), 2024 SKCA 50, 438 C.C.C. (3d) 196, [2024] 8 W.W.R. 1, [2024] S.J. No. 144 (Lexis), 2024 CarswellSask 190 (WL), setting aside the conviction of the accused for sexual assault and entering an acquittal. Appeal allowed, Rowe J. dissenting. Anthony B. Gerein, for the appellant. Matthew J. Schmeling and Elise T. von Holwede, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] Moreau J. — This is an appeal as of right from the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan. The respondent was found guilty of sexual assault. He appealed his conviction. [2] The Court of Appeal was unanimous that the trial judge made reviewable errors in her treatment of the respondent’s evidence and in her analysis of his defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent. Justices Barrington-Foote and Drennan, for the majority, found that the verdict was unreasonable and entered an acquittal. Justice Tholl, dissenting, would have quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial. [3] Before this Court, the Crown submits that the majority erred by finding that the verdict was unreasonable. A majority of this Court would allow the appeal, substantially for the reasons of Justice Tholl. Justice Rowe would have dismissed the appeal, substantially for the reasons of the majority in the Court of Appeal. [4] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and a new trial is ordered. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Office of the Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina. Solicitors for the respondent: McDougall Gauley, Regina.
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.