Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(Publication ban in case)

Criminal law - Evidence - Admissibility - New evidence - Expert evidence - Complainant’s post-event demeanour - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the expert opinion of Dr. Robert Wood was not admissible as fresh evidence - Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the lay opinion of Det. Hennick that the injury on the appellant’s finger appeared to be a bite mark - Whether the trial judge erred by relying on the complainant’s distressed post-incident demeanour to support his positive view of her testimony and corroborate her version of events, without considering whether there were alternative explanations for her demeanour - Whether the trial judge erred by failing to apply the second stage of the W. (D.) analysis, comparing the evidence of the complainant and appellant side by side rather than asking whether the appellant’s evidence raised a reasonable doubt.


The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge improperly relied on the post-event demeanour of the complainant as a factor in conviction, and that the trial judge improperly rejected his evidence. On appeal, the appellant also moved to introduce the report of a forensic dentist which concluded that a mark on his finger was not the result of a bite mark, contrary to the complainant’s testimony at trial according to which she bit one of the his fingers during the attack. The appellant argued that this fresh evidence strongly undermined the trial judge’s reasons and verdict. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Winkler C.J.O., dissenting, would have allowed the fresh evidence application, allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial. In his view, the trial judge improperly admitted the evidence of a bite mark and the demeanour evidence of the complainant, and misdirected himself as to the manner in which he applied the criminal onus of proof.