R. v. Vuradin (F.) (2013), 553 A.R. 1; 583 W.A.C. 1 (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: [2013] A.R. TBEd. JN.115
Fabian Vuradin (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)
(35143; 2013 SCC 38; 2013 CSC 38)
Indexed As: R. v. Vuradin (F.)
Supreme Court of Canada
Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ.
June 27, 2013.
Summary:
The accused was charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of unlawful touching of a person under 16 for a sexual purpose (counts 1 to 5). There were three child complainants and one adult complainant.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench convicted the accused on all five charges. The conviction on count 2 was stayed according to the Kienapple principle. The accused appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, Côté, J.A., dissenting in part, in a decision reported at (2011), 515 A.R. 25; 532 W.A.C. 25, allowed the appeal in part. A new trial was ordered on counts 3, 4 and 5. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Editor’s Note: For a decision regarding this accused’s sentence appeal, see (2012), 524 A.R. 66; 545 W.A.C. 66.
Courts – Topic 583
Judges – Duties – Re reasons for decisions (incl. notes) – On his appeal from convictions on two counts of sexual assault against a minor complainant, the accused asserted, inter alia, that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient in that they did not explain why the judge accepted the complainant’s evidence, despite live credibility issues, and did not address the accused’s evidence or explain why it was rejected – Further, the accused asserted that the reasons did not allow an appellate court to determine whether or not there was an error in the judge’s application of R. v. D.W. (1991 S.C.C.) – The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal – The core question in determining whether the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient was the following: Did the reasons, read in context, show why the judge decided as he did on the counts relating to the complainant? – Here, the trial judge’s reasons satisfied this threshold – The trial judge found the complainant’s evidence compelling, the problems in her evidence inconsequential, and the accused’s concoction theories speculative – The reasons revealed that the trial judge accepted the complainant’s evidence where it conflicted with the accused’s evidence – No further explanation for rejecting the accused’s evidence was required – See paragraphs 9 to 19.
Criminal Law – Topic 4300
Procedure – Trial judge – Duties and functions of – Respecting credibility of witnesses (incl. accused) – On his appeal from convictions on two counts of sexual assault against a minor complainant, the accused asserted, inter alia, that the trial judge had erred in his application of the burden of proof by not following the test in R. v. D.W. (1991 S.C.C.) – The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal – The paramount question in a criminal case was whether, on the whole of the evidence, the trier of fact was left with a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused – The order in which a trial judge made credibility findings of witnesses was inconsequential as long as the principle of reasonable doubt remained the central consideration – A verdict of guilt could not be based on a choice between the accused’s evidence and the Crown’s evidence – However, trial judges were not required to explain in detail the process they followed to reach a verdict – Although a trial judge did not have to outline the D.W. steps, the trial judge here referred to D.W. and the dangers that it addressed – The trial judge’s reasons, read as a whole, did not reveal an incorrect application of the D.W. principles – The accused was not believed – The Crown’s case was considered with the accused’s denials in mind – The trial judge concluded, as he was entitled to, that the denials did not raise a reasonable doubt – See paragraphs 20 to 28.
Criminal Law – Topic 4351
Procedure – Charge or directions – Jury or judge alone – Direction regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 4300
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4377
Procedure – Charge or directions – Jury or judge alone – Directions regarding credibility of witnesses – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 4300
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4379
Procedure – Charge or directions – Jury or judge alone – Directions re evidence of character or credibility of accused – [See
Criminal Law – Topic 4300
].
Criminal Law – Topic 4684
Procedure – Judgments and reasons for judgment – Reasons for judgment – Sufficiency of – [See
Courts – Topic 583
].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 7].
R. v. W.(D.) – see R. v. D.W.
R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 8].
R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. Dinardo (J.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788; 374 N.R. 198; 2008 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 10].
R. v. C.L.Y., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5; 370 N.R. 284; 225 Man.R.(2d) 146; 419 W.A.C. 146; 2008 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 21].
R. v. Boucher (E.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 499; 342 N.R. 42; 2005 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 21].
Counsel:
Peter J. Royal, Q.C., and Tara E. Hayes, for the appellant;
Joanne Dartana, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Royal Teskey, Edmonton, Alberta, for the appellant;
Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on May 16, 2013, by Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On June 27, 2013, Karakatsanis, J., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court in both official languages.
