Case information

Criminal law — Evidence — Misapprehension of evidence — Miscarriage of justice — Appeals — Sufficiency of reasons — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence in a manner that resulted in a miscarriage of justice — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge provided reasons that were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.<br>

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)

At trial, the respondent, D.F., was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and making sexually explicit material available to a child, the complainant.

A majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It dismissed the respondent’s appeal on the count of making sexually explicit material available to a child, but set aside the convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference and ordered a new trial on those counts. In the majority’s view, the trial judge did misapprehend the complainant’s evidence in a key area. This misapprehension was on a matter of substance, related to material issues at trial, and played an essential role in the trial judge’s reasoning process. Because of the misapprehension, the trial judge’s reasons did not deal with inconsistencies between the complainant’s evidence and that of her mother and this was a key issue in the case. The impact of the two related errors was such that the convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference had to be set aside.

Hourigan J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal in its entirety. In his view, there was no material misapprehension of evidence. Further, the reasons were sufficient as they provided an adequate basis for the court to consider the respondent’s submission and they explained why the trial judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown met its burden.