R. v. D.D. (2000), 136 O.A.C. 201 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2000] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.020
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. D.D. (respondent)
(27013; 2000 SCC 43)
Indexed As: R. v. D.D.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and Arbour, JJ.
October 5, 2000.
Summary:
A jury convicted the accused of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching. The complainant was five to six years old at the time of the alleged abuse. She told no one about the abuse for 2.5 years. The accused appealed his conviction and sentence.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 113 O.A.C. 179, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Crown appealed the court’s ruling that expert evidence on delay in reporting child abuse was not admissible.
The Supreme Court of Canada, McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, and Gonthier, JJ., dissenting on the merits, dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law – Topic 693
Sexual offences – Evidence – Recent fabrication of complaint – A child complainant told a friend about sexual abuse alleged to have occurred 2.5 years earlier – The defence argued that the jury could draw a common sense inference from the delay that the complainant had fabricated the sexual assaults – The trial judge permitted the Crown to call a rebuttal witness, a psychologist qualified as an expert in child sexual abuse and the manner in which children disclose sexual abuse – His testimony was of a general nature (i.e., not specific to this complainant) – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the evidence was inadmissible – It did not meet the requirement of necessity – At the time of the trial, the doctrine of recent complaint as a principle of law did not exist – The trial judge erred in permitting expert evidence that supported the correctness of this change in the law – See paragraphs 44 to 71.
Evidence – Topic 7000
Opinion evidence – Expert evidence – General – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 693
].
Evidence – Topic 7052
Opinion evidence – Expert evidence – Particular matters – Child abuse – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 693
].
Evidence – Topic 7056
Opinion evidence – Expert evidence – Particular matters – Sexual abuse – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 693
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, appld. [paras. 8, 45].
R. v. Marquard (D.), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 81; 66 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. D.S.F. (1999), 118 O.A.C. 272; 43 O.R.(3d) 609 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].
R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. A.K. (1999), 125 O.A.C. 1; 45 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Villamar, [1999] O.J. No. 1923 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. G.C. (1996), 144 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 204; 451 A.P.R. 204; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 233 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
R. v. Béland and Phillips, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398; 79 N.R. 263; 9 Q.A.C. 293, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 19].
R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30, refd to. [paras. 21, 50].
Kelliher (Village) v. Smith, [1931] S.C.R. 672, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. R.M.M. (1998), 106 O.A.C. 191; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 563 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. D.B.T. (1994), 71 O.A.C. 233; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 466 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. R.A.C. (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 522 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. T.E.M. (1996), 187 A.R. 273; 127 W.A.C. 273 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 28, 63].
R. v. Ménard (S.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 109; 228 N.R. 100; 111 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 32].
R. v. Dietrich (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 49 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
R. v. Lillyman, [1896] 2 Q.B. 167, refd to. [para. 60].
Kribs v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 400, refd to. [para. 61].
R. v. Timm, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 315; 37 N.R. 204; 29 A.R. 509, refd to. [para. 61].
R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 63].
R. v. P.S.M. (1992), 59 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 402 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Federal/Provincial Task Force on Uniform Rules of Evidence (1982), p. 322 [para. 62].
Hawkins, William, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1824), generally [para. 60].
Kaufman Report – see Ontario, Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin (Kaufman Report).
Learned Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony (1901), 15 Harv. L. Rev. 40, generally [para. 52].
Ontario, Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin (Kaufman Report) (1998), p. 172 [para. 52].
Paciocco, David, Expert Evidence: Where Are We Now? Where Are We Going? (1998), pp. 16, 17 [para. 57].
Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 131, 132 [para. 19].
Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), p. 620 [para. 47].
Wigmore on Evidence (2nd Ed. 1923), vol. 3, p. 764 [para. 60].
Counsel:
M. David Lepofsky and Christopher Webb, for the appellant;
P. Andras Schreck, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Pinkofsky Lockyer, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on March 14, 2000, by McLachlin, C.J.C., L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Court was delivered in both official languages on October 5, 2000, and the following opinions were filed:
McLachlin, C.J.C., dissenting (L’Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 43;
Major, J. (Iacobucci, Binnie and Arbour, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 44 to 71.
