Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
A sexual assault conviction was upheld. The Court said R. v. J.J.R.D. is about appellate review of reasons, not a trial formula for W. (D.) analysis.
Judge accepted complainant FM's testimony as credible and reliable, rejected defendant's evidence as evasive and inconsistent under the W. (D.) analysis; on the evidence as a whole the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally committed sexual assault (s.271 CC) and unlawful confinement (s.279(2) CC), and there was no air of reality to a defence of honest mistaken belief in consent under s.273.2 CC.
Source excerpt
The trial judge erred as a matter of law and in fact by failing to analyse how alleged inadvertent collusion affected each defence witness, by failing to weigh and address significant uncontradicted exculpatory evidence, and by not providing a considered and reasoned W. (D.) analysis; those errors rendered the guilty verdicts unreasonable and required ordering a new trial.
Source excerpt
The Court held the trial judge properly applied the W. (D.) framework, addressed and reconciled material inconsistencies in light of the complainant's age and circumstances, did not rely on impermissible stereotypes or propensity reasoning, and made credibility findings open on the record; therefore there was no reversible error and the conviction stands.
Source excerpt
Majority: The trial judge erred in excluding the appellant's exculpatory statements that were adduced by the Crown; the error was not minor and the Crown's case was not overwhelming, so the curative proviso cannot be applied and the convictions are quashed. Dissent: would have applied the proviso because the excluded denial had limited probative value and admitted evidence was sufficient to uphold convictions.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court of Canada admitted fresh dental evidence, set aside sexual assault convictions, and ordered a new trial after finding the evidence could affect the verdict.
Explore more
