R. v. C.R.B. (1990), 107 N.R. 241 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
…………………….
C.R.B. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)
(No. 20704)
Indexed As: R. v. C.R.B.
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ.
April 12, 1990.
Summary:
The accused was convicted of sexual offences against his 11 year old natural daughter. The accused appealed, raising the issue of the admissibility of certain similar fact evidence.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, Harradence, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 82 A.R. 45, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, Sopinka and Lamer, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.
Criminal Law – Topic 5039
Appeals – Indictable offences – Dismissal of appeal if error resulted in no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice – Effect of error by trial judge – General – [See third Criminal Law – Topic 5212].
Criminal Law – Topic 5212
Evidence and witnesses – Admissibility and relevancy – Similar acts – General – The accused was convicted of sexual offences against his 11 year old natural daughter – The trial judge admitted evidence of a stepdaughter that she was also sexually molested by the accused – The trial judge stated the proper test for admission of similar fact evidence, but then erroneously suggested that the similar fact evidence related to the issue of identity, when the evidence was relevant only to the complainant’s credibility – The Supreme Court of Canada held that when looking at the trial judge’s ruling as a whole, his misstatement was not material – The court affirmed admission of the similar fact evidence – See paragraphs 32 to 44.
Criminal Law – Topic 5212
Evidence and witnesses – Admissibility and relevancy – Similar acts – General – The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the test for admission of similar fact evidence – The court also reviewed the history and development of the rules respecting such evidence both in English and Canadian jurisprudence – See paragraphs 4 to 30 – The court thereafter set out its conclusions as to the law of similar fact evidence as it stood in Canada in 1990 – See paragraph 31.
Criminal Law – Topic 5212
Evidence and witnesses – Admissibility and relevancy – Similar acts – With respect to a trial judge’s ruling respecting the admission of similar fact evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that “the fact that a trial judge misstates himself at one point should not vitiate his ruling if the preponderance of what was said shows that the proper test was applied and if the decision can be justified on the evidence” – See paragraph 36.
Evidence – Topic 1256
Relevant facts – Relevance and materiality – Similar acts – To prove criminal conduct – [See first and second Criminal Law – Topic 5212].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Hampden (1684), 9 How. St. Tr. 1053, refd to. [para. 6].
Makin v. Attorney General for New South Wales, [1894] A.C. 57, consd. [paras. 10-18, 24, 47, 50, 58, 59, 60].
R. v. Hall (1887), 5 N.Z.L.R. 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Boardman, [1975] A.C. 421, consd. [paras. 15-31, 46, 49, 50, 57, 58, 61, 68, 74, 75, 76].
R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Cloutier, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 709; 28 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 23, 31, 49].
R. v. Rance (1975), 62 Cr. App. R. 118, refd to. [paras. 23, 27].
R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341, refd to. [paras. 23, 28, 31, 39, 51, 55].
R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 23, 26, 28, 30, 31].
R. v. L.E.D., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 111; 97 N.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 23, 26, 28, 31, 54, 59, 70].
R. v. Scopelliti (1981), 63 C.C.C.(2d) 481, refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Guay, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 18; 23 N.R. 451, refd to. [paras. 25, 28, 31, 37].
R. v. Sweitzer, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 949; 42 N.R. 550, refd to. [paras. 26, 50].
R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 918; 75 N.R. 6, refd to. [paras. 25, 27, 28, 53].
R. v. Mansfield (1977), 65 Cr. App. R. 276, refd to. [para. 27].
R. v. Scarrott, [1978] Q.B. 1016, refd to. [para. 27].
Sutton v. The Queen (1984), 152 C.L.R. 528 (H.C. Aust.), refd to. [para. 30].
Harris v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1952] A.C. 694 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 37].
R. v. Campbell, [1956] 2 All E.R. 272 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kilbourne, [1973] A.C. 729, refd to. [paras. 46, 55, 59, 72].
R. v. Sims, [1946] K.B. 531, refd to. [para. 47].
R. v. Straffen, [1952] 2 Q.B. 911, refd to. [paras. 60, 61, 65].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Andrews, John A. and Michael Hirst, Criminal Evidence (1987), paras. 15.27 [para. 40]; 15.29 [para. 73]; 15.34, 15.37 [para. 14].
Cross On Evidence (6th Ed. 1985), pp. 316 [para. 63]; 321 [para. 64]; 334 [para. 65].
Forbes, J.R.S., Similar Facts (1987), pp. v. [para. 7]; 7 [paras. 7]; 54, 55 [para. 29].
Foster, Sir Michael, Crown Law (1762), p. 246 [para. 7].
Hoffmann, L.H. Similar Facts After Boardman (1975), 91 L.Q.R. 193, p. 202 [para. 57].
Phipson on Evidence (12th Ed. 1976), pp. 175, 179 [para. 48].
Sklar, Ronald B., Similar Fact Evidence – Catchwords and Cartwheels (1977), 23 McGill L.J. 60, p. 62 [para. 14].
Counsel:
Terence Semenuk, for the appellant;
Linsay MacDonald, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Singleton Urquhart, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;
Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on October 30, 1989, before Dickson, C.J.C., Lamer, Wilson, L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the court was rendered in both official languages on April 12, 1990, including the following opinions:
McLachlin, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., Wilson, L’Heureux-Dubé, and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 44;
Sopinka, J., dissenting (Lamer, J., concurring) – see paragraphs 45 to 77.
