Case information
Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.
39456
Tanner Jay Morrow v. Her Majesty the Queen
(Alberta) (Criminal) (As of Right)
(Publication ban in case)
Docket
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
| Date | Proceeding | Filed By (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|
| 2021-06-09 | Transcript received, 47 pages | |
| 2021-06-07 | Appeal closed | |
| 2021-05-19 | Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties | |
| 2021-05-19 | Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties | |
| 2021-05-19 | General proceeding, (Letter Form), Case sensitivity questionnaire, (Printed version due on 2021-05-27) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-05-19 | General proceeding, (Letter Form), Case Sensitivity Questionnaire, (Printed version due on 2021-05-27) | Tanner Jay Morrow |
| 2021-05-19 |
Judgment on the appeal rendered, Mo Ka Côt Row Kas, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Alberta (Calgary), Number 1901-0174-A, 2020 ABCA 407, dated November 19, 2020, was heard on May 19, 2021, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: MOLDAVER J. (Karakatsanis, Rowe and Kasirer JJ. concurring) — A majority of the Court is of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal at paras. 16 and 17 of its judgment. As the majority observed, the record clearly supports the inference drawn by the trial judge that Mr. Morrow’s conduct represented an attempt to dissuade the complainant, by corrupt means, from giving evidence. Mr. Morrow knew he had recently been charged with criminal harassment and that he was bound not to contact the complainant. Despite this, he attended her home uninvited and engaged her in a prolonged and distressing discussion about the process for withdrawing the charges and her reasons for bringing them. The complainant testified that the exchange made her feel “[p]ressured to please” Mr. Morrow and to get him out of the house (A.R., vol. II, at p. 30). Shortly thereafter, Mr. Morrow sexually assaulted her, which served to exacerbate her concerns. On the basis of this evidence, it was open for the trial judge to find that Mr. Morrow’s intention was to apply pressure on the complainant and ultimately to manipulate her into dropping the charges against him. The fact that Mr. Morrow may have also been motivated by a desire to rekindle his relationship with the complainant did not undermine the availability of this finding. There was also evidence that contradicted Mr. Morrow’s position that he was simply responding to a request for information. The complainant made no such request to Mr. Morrow and she did not expect, nor was she interested in, the information he provided. In these circumstances, and having regard to the fact that survivors of domestic abuse are particularly vulnerable to acts of intimidation and manipulation, the trial judge’s verdict was reasonable. There is no basis for appellate intervention. CÔTÉ J. — The wording of the charge required evidence that the appellant attempted to dissuade the complainant “by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence” (A.R., vol. I, at p. 2). There is no such evidence here. The appellant’s behaviour cannot, in this case, be characterized as a “corrupt means” within the meaning of s. 139(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Appealing to or preying on affection are means of persuasion just like appealing to or preying on reason. Nothing in the circumstances of this case makes these means of persuasion “corrupt”. The trial judge erred in finding otherwise. His reliance on R. v. Crazyboy, 2011 ABPC 369, was inapposite for two reasons. First, no finding of “corrupt means” was made in that case, as the wording of the charge did not require any. Second, Mr. Crazyboy attempted to manipulate the complainant and incited her to adopt an illegal behaviour by fleeing from her home so that she would not be brought before the court to give evidence. Here, the appellant merely provided information as to the process for withdrawing charges. Like Slatter J.A., I am of the view that the conviction for attempting to obstruct justice is not made out on this record, and that the conviction is unreasonable. I would therefore allow the appeal and enter a verdict of acquittal. Dismissed |
|
| 2021-05-19 |
Hearing of the appeal, 2021-05-19, Mo Ka Côt Row Kas Judgment rendered |
|
| 2021-05-17 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), Form 23B for the Respondent's condensed book | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-05-17 | Respondent's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-05-17) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-05-17 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), Form 23B for Appellant's condensed book | Tanner Jay Morrow |
| 2021-05-17 | Appellant's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-05-17) | Tanner Jay Morrow |
| 2021-04-23 | Notice of appearance, Andrew Barg will appear before the court, and will present oral arguments. | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-04-22 | Notice of appearance, Markham Silver Q.C., and Andrea L. Serink will appear before the court. Mr. Silver and Ms. Serink will both present oral arguments. | Tanner Jay Morrow |
| 2021-04-12 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), Form 23B - Factum, Record, Authorities | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-04-12 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), Form 23A | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-04-12 | Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), Form 24B | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-04-12 | Respondent's book of authorities, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-04-14, (Printed version filed on 2021-04-13) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-04-12 | Respondent's record, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-04-14, (Printed version filed on 2021-04-13) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-04-12 | Respondent's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-04-14, (Printed version filed on 2021-04-13) | Her Majesty the Queen |
| 2021-02-18 | Notice of hearing sent to parties | |
| 2021-02-18 |
Appeal hearing scheduled, 2021-05-19 Judgment rendered |
|
| 2021-02-16 | Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-02-16) | Tanner Jay Morrow |
| 2021-02-16 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), 23B-Appellant's factum/Record, (Printed version filed on 2021-02-16) | Tanner Jay Morrow |
| 2021-02-16 | Appellant's record, (Book Form), (2 volumes), Completed on: 2021-02-19, (Printed version filed on 2021-02-16) | Tanner Jay Morrow |
| 2021-02-16 | Appellant's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-02-19, (Printed version filed on 2021-02-16) | Tanner Jay Morrow |
| 2021-02-02 | Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Notice of appeal – As of right), by email on 2021-02-03 | |
| 2020-12-16 | Letter acknowledging receipt of a notice of appeal, FILE OPENED 12/16/20 | |
| 2020-12-11 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), 23B | Tanner Jay Morrow |
| 2020-12-11 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), 23A | Tanner Jay Morrow |
| 2020-12-11 | Notice of appeal, (Letter Form), Completed on: 2020-12-11 | Tanner Jay Morrow |
Parties
Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.
Main parties
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Morrow, Tanner Jay | Appellant | Active |
v.
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Her Majesty the Queen | Respondent | Active |
Counsel
Party: Morrow, Tanner Jay
Counsel
H. Markham Silver, Q.C.
Suite 600, 630 6 Ave SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0S8
Telephone: (403) 719-7500
FAX: (403) 719-3669
Email: as@serinklawoffice.ca
Agent
900 - 275 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5H9
Telephone: (613) 691-1224
FAX: (613) 691-1338
Email: mdillon@supremelawgroup.ca
Party: Her Majesty the Queen
Counsel
Appeals Unit
300 Centrium Place, 332-6 Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0B2
Telephone: (403) 297-6005
FAX: (403) 297-3453
Email: andrew.barg@gov.ab.ca
Agent
160 Elgin Street
Suite 2600
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1C3
Telephone: (613) 786-8695
FAX: (613) 788-3509
Email: lynne.watt@gowlingwlg.com
Summary
Keywords
Criminal law - Appeals - Evidence - Unreasonable verdict - Whether the conviction for attempting to obstruct justice is unreasonable or incompatible with the evidence
Summary
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)
At trial, the appellant was convicted of sexual assault, attempting to obstruct justice, and breach of bail conditions which prohibited him from contacting the complainant or attending at her residence, following a charge of criminal harassment. Shortly after the appellant had been charged and released in the criminal harassment file, the complainant contacted his father and asked if there was a way for her to withdraw the charges. In response, the appellant made inquries and went to the complainant’s home to tell her how to contact the Crown in order to have the charges against him dropped. While he was there, the appellant grabbed the complainant and forcibly kissed her.
The appellant appealed his conviction on a number of grounds, including an allegation that the trial judge’s reasons on the charge of attempting to obstruct justice were inadequate. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the trial judge’s inference that the appellant had applied pressure on the complainant for an improper purpose, thereby committing the offence of attempting to obstruct justice, was available on the record. In the majority’s view, the context clearly supported that inference, which is entitled to deference. In dissent, Slatter J.A. would have allowed the appeal in part, and would have set aside the conviction on the charge of attempting to obstruct justice. In his opinion, the conviction was unreasonable and incompatible with the evidence.
Lower court rulings
Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary)
1901-0174-A, 2020 ABCA 407
Appeal against conviction for sexual assault, obstruction of justice and breach of recognizance dismissed.
Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal
The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available
Related links
Factums on appeal
The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available