R. v. Wright
Although the trial judge erred by referring to the complainant's diary not admitted in evidence, that error did not cause a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal properly applied the curative proviso in s.686(1)(b)(iii) and therefore the appeal is dismissed and the convictions are upheld.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] 2 SCR 163
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Wright; Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 22 May 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Assault, Corroboration, Curative Proviso S.686(1)(b)(iii)
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Wright
Appellant
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Ontario Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by relying on the complainant's diary that had not been admitted into evidence as corroboration of her testimony
- 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the curative proviso s.686(1)(b)(iii) to uphold the conviction
Ratio Decidendi
Although the trial judge erred by referring to the complainant's diary not admitted in evidence, that error did not cause a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal properly applied the curative proviso in s.686(1)(b)(iii) and therefore the appeal is dismissed and the convictions are upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Wright Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1996-05-22 Report [1996] 2 SCR 163 Case number 24839 Judges La Forest, Gérard V.; Sopinka, John; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C. On appeal from Ontario Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 24839 Decision Content R. v. Wright, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 163 Robert Wright Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Wright File No.: 24839. 1996: May 22. Present: La Forest, Sopinka, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Criminal law ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Sexual assault ‑‑ Trial judge erring in relying on contents of complainant’s diary as corroboration of her testimony since diary had not been introduced into evidence ‑‑ Court of Appeal not erring in applying curative proviso ‑‑ 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 Ontario Court of Appeal, [1995] O.J. No. 2279 (QL), dismissing the accused’s appeal from his conviction of sexual assault and sexual interference. Appeal dismissed. Richard Litkowski, for the appellant. Roger A. Pinnock, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by 1 La Forest J. ‑‑ This appeal comes to us as of right. In the circumstances of this case, we are all of the view that the Court of Appeal did not err in applying s. 686(1) (b)(iii) of the Criminal Code . The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Richard Litkowski, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto.