R. v. P. (J.)
- Citation
- [1993] 1 SCR 469
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 24 February 1993
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal as of Right From the Quebec Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 24 February 1993
- Posture
- Criminal / Appeal as of Right From the Quebec Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Assuming without deciding that the trial judge erred in failing to inquire into the child's capacity, the evidence was nonetheless sufficient and the appellate court applied s. 686(1)(b)(iii) to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction upheld
02
Material facts
Parties
P. (J.)
Appellant Counsel: Richard Shadley, Jean VilleneuveHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Lori Renée Weitzmann03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal / Appeal as of Right From the Quebec Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge erred in failing to inquire into the three‑year‑old child's capacity to testify before admitting the mother's hearsay evidence
- 02
Whether the conviction should be upheld notwithstanding any such error under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued the trial judge failed to inquire into the child's capacity to testify and therefore improperly admitted hearsay evidence, warranting overturning the conviction.
- Respondent
- The Crown conceded for purposes of argument that an inquiry may have been required but submitted that, even if error occurred, s. 686(1)(b)(iii) permits affirmation of the conviction because the evidence was sufficient and any error did not affect the verdict.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law/evidence principles applied at trial level
A trial judge has a duty to inquire into the competence and capacity of a child witness before admitting evidence that may circumvent the child's direct testimony
- 02
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 686(1)(b)(iii)
Under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code an appellate court may dismiss an appeal and uphold a conviction where, despite an error at trial, the evidence is such that the verdict stands and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice resulted
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Assuming without deciding that the trial judge erred in failing to inquire into the child's capacity, the evidence was nonetheless sufficient and the appellate court applied s. 686(1)(b)(iii) to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction.
Obiter and limits
- The Court expressly assumed but did not decide that the trial judge erred in failing to inquire into the child's capacity to testify
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction upheld
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 24 February 1993
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· 24 February 1993
R. v. P. (J.) Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1993-02-24 Report [1993] 1 SCR 469 Case number 22901 Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Quebec Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 22901 Decision Content R. v. P. (J.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 469 P. (J.) Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. P. (J.) File No.: 22901. 1993: February 24. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Children ‑‑ Exceptions to hearsay rule ‑‑ Capacity of children to testify ‑‑ Whether trial judge erred in failing to inquire into three‑year‑old child's capacity to testify before admitting mother's hearsay evidence ‑‑ Whether conviction should nonetheless be upheld ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 686(1) (b)(iii). Statutes and Regulations Cited Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 686(1) (b)(iii). APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (1992), 13 C.R. (4th) 79, 74 C.C.C. (3d) 276, dismissing the accused's appeal from his conviction by Judge Morier on a charge of sexual assault. Appeal dismissed. Richard Shadley and Jean Villeneuve, for the appellant. Lori Renée Weitzmann, for the
respondent. //McLachlin J.// The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by McLachlin J. ‑‑ This is an appeal as of right. Assuming without deciding that the trial judge erred in failing to inquire into the capacity of the child to testify, we are all of the view that the evidence is such that this is a proper case for the application of the provision in s. 686(1) (b)(iii) of the Criminal Code . Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Shadley, Melançon & Boro, Montréal. Solicitor for the respondent: Lori Renée Weitzmann, Montréal.
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.