R. v. S.B.
- Citation
- 2017 SCC 16
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 22 March 2017
- Posture
- Criminal — Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal; New Trial Ordered
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 22 March 2017
- Posture
- Criminal — Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal; New Trial Ordered
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge's errors in permitting cross-examination on prior sexual activity and in denying the Crown leave to adduce rebuttal evidence of recent fabrication materially affected trial fairness and the reliability of the jury verdicts.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered on all charges.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- New trial ordered on all charges
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty The Queen
Appellant Counsel: Iain R. W. HollettS.B.
Respondent Counsel: Rosellen Sullivan; Michael A. CrystalAmounts and remedies
- Docket Number: 37,042
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal — Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment on Appeal; New Trial Ordered
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge erred in allowing cross-examination of the complainant on prior sexual activity
- 02
Whether the trial judge erred in denying Crown applications to lead evidence to rebut allegations of recent fabrication
- 03
Whether the identified trial errors required setting aside the jury acquittals and ordering a new trial
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown submitted that the trial judge erred in permitting improper cross-examination regarding the complainant's prior sexual activity and in refusing Crown applications to introduce rebuttal evidence of recent fabrication; those errors undermined the fairness and reliability of the trial and warranted setting aside the acquittals and ordering a new trial.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that despite the trial judge's alleged errors the jury verdicts were reasonable and should be upheld; the majority of the Court of Appeal found the verdicts could stand and that no new trial was required.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law and appellate review principles on sexual assault evidence
Trial judges must limit cross-examination on a complainant's prior sexual activity to prevent unfair prejudice and ensure a fair trial.
- 02
Common law evidence principles and trial procedure
The Crown has the ability to seek to lead rebuttal evidence to address allegations of recent fabrication when relevant and admissible.
- 03
Appellate review powers and criminal appeals jurisprudence
Appellate courts may order a new trial where trial errors are shown to have materially affected the fairness of the proceedings or the reliability of the verdict.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge's errors in permitting cross-examination on prior sexual activity and in denying the Crown leave to adduce rebuttal evidence of recent fabrication materially affected trial fairness and the reliability of the jury verdicts.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered on all charges.
- Appeal allowed
- New trial ordered on all charges
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 22 March 2017
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· 22 March 2017
R. v. S.B. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2017-03-22 Neutral citation 2017 SCC 16 Report [2017] 1 SCR 248 Case number 37042 Judges McLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne On appeal from Newfoundland and Labrador Notes SCC Case Information: 37042 Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. S.B., 2017 SCC 16, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 248 Appeal heard: March 21, 2017 Judgment rendered: March 21, 2017 Docket: 37042 Between: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and S.B. Respondent Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Côté JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (para.
1) McLachlin C.J. (Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Côté JJ. concurring) R. v. S.B., 2017 SCC 16, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 248 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. S.B. Respondent Indexed as: R. v. S.B. 2017 SCC 16 File No.: 37042. 2017: March 21. Present: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Côté JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for newfoundland and labrador Criminal law — Appeals — Powers of Court of Appeal — Accused acquitted of several counts of assault and sexual assault by jury — Court of Appeal holding that trial judge erred in allowing cross-examination of complainant on prior sexual activity and in denying Crown applications to lead evidence to rebut allegations of recent fabrication — Majority of Court of Appeal finding that jury verdict should not be set aside despite trial judge’s errors — Dissenting judge finding that proper remedy is to set aside acquittals and order new trial — New trial ordered on all charges. APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal (Green C.J. and Rowe and White JJ.A.), 2016 NLCA 20, 30 C.R. (7th) 61, 377 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 84, 1173 A.P.R. 84, 336 C.C.C. (3d) 38, [2016] N.J. No. 158 (QL), 2016 CarswellNfld 183 (WL Can.), affirming the accused’s acquittals. Appeal allowed and new trial ordered. Iain R. W. Hollett, for the appellant. Rosellen Sullivan and Michael A.
Crystal, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] The Chief Justice — We would allow the appeal and order a new trial on all the charges, for the reasons of Chief Justice Green. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John’s. Solicitors for the respondent: Sullivan Breen King Defence, St. John’s; Spiteri & Ursulak, Ottawa.
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.