R. v. Mehari
- Citation
- 2020 SCC 40
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 4 December 2020
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal From Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 4 December 2020
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal From Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court found no error in the trial judge’s credibility assessment that warranted appellate intervention; while the Court did not decide whether uneven scrutiny can be an independent ground of appeal, there was no basis to overturn the trial judge on that ground in this case, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal to consider other grounds.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial overturned in part and matter remitted to the Court of Appeal
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Matter remitted to the Court of Appeal to decide the grounds of appeal the majority did not address
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty The Queen
Appellant Counsel: W. Dean Sinclair, Q.C.Awet Mehari
Respondent Counsel: Aaron A. Fox, Q.C.; Darren KraushaarAmounts and remedies
- Year: 2,020
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal From Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether uneven scrutiny by a trial judge can constitute an independent ground of appeal
- 02
Whether the trial judge applied a different level of scrutiny to the evidence of the accused and the complainant
- 03
Whether any alleged error in the credibility assessment warranted appellate intervention
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown submitted the trial judge did not err in assessing credibility and that the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the conviction; no legal error warranting intervention was shown.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the accused’s evidence compared with the complainant’s evidence and that this error required a new trial; argued uneven scrutiny may be an independent ground of appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence cited in judgment
Appellate courts must show deference to trial judges on credibility findings absent demonstrable error
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada (this judgment)
Uneven scrutiny as a concept has not been definitively determined by this Court to be an independent ground of appeal
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court found no error in the trial judge’s credibility assessment that warranted appellate intervention; while the Court did not decide whether uneven scrutiny can be an independent ground of appeal, there was no basis to overturn the trial judge on that ground in this case, and the matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal to consider other grounds.
Obiter and limits
- This Court has not decided whether uneven scrutiny, if it exists, can amount to an independent ground of appeal
- Deference to trial judges on credibility assessments remains the general rule absent clear error
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial overturned in part and matter remitted to the Court of Appeal
- Appeal allowed
- Matter remitted to the Court of Appeal to decide the grounds of appeal the majority did not address
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 4 December 2020
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· 4 December 2020
R. v. Mehari Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2020-12-04 Neutral citation 2020 SCC 40 Report [2020] 3 SCR 782 Case number 39109 Judges Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas On appeal from Saskatchewan Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Mehari, 2020 SCC 40, [2020] 3 S.C.R. 782 Appeal Heard: December 4, 2020 Judgment Rendered: December 4, 2020 Docket: 39109 Between: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Awet Mehari Respondent Coram: Abella, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ. Unanimous Judgment Read By: (paras. 1 to 2) Martin J. Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. Awet Mehari Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Mehari 2020 SCC 40 File No.: 39109. 2020: December 4. Present: Abella, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for saskatchewan Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Credibility — Uneven scrutiny — Trial judge convicting accused of sexual assault — Majority of Court of Appeal finding trial judge erred in credibility assessment by applying different level of scrutiny to evidence of accused compared to that of complainant and ordering new trial — Trial judge made no error warranting intervention on appeal — Matter remitted to Court of Appeal to decide other grounds of appeal. APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Whitmore, Leurer and Kalmakoff JJ.A.), 2020 SKCA 37, 387 C.C.C. (3d) 147, [2020] S.J. No. 100 (QL), 2020 CarswellSask 136 (WL Can.), setting aside the conviction of the accused for sexual assault and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed. W. Dean Sinclair, Q.C., for the appellant. Aaron A. Fox, Q.C., and Darren
Kraushaar, for the respondent. The following is the judgment delivered orally by [1] The Court — This Court has not decided whether uneven scrutiny, if it exists, can amount to an independent ground of appeal or a separate and distinct error of law. In any event, we see no error in respect of this argument that would have warranted intervention on appeal. [2] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to the Court of Appeal to decide the grounds of appeal the majority did not address. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Attorney General of 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.