Arnold Hussey

The accused was convicted of several offences resulting from altercations with two complainants.

The accused appealed on the basis that the trial judge erred in admitting an out-of-court statement made by a complainant who died of unrelated causes before trial, for the truth of its contents.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge applied an incorrect principle of law in assessing threshold reliability and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada, allowing the Crown's appeal, found that the trial judge properly applied the principled approach to hearsay evidence and did not relax the minimum threshold of reliability, agreeing with the dissent in the Court of Appeal.

The convictions were restored.

The Crown appealed a Court of Appeal decision that had set aside a jury's convictions of the respondent for indecent assault and gross indecency on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable.

The sole issue was whether inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony — as between his police statement, preliminary inquiry evidence, and trial evidence — were so significant that a conviction based on his evidence was unreasonable as a matter of law.

The majority held that the inconsistencies, while troubling, did not render the jury's verdict unreasonable, as the complainant offered an explanation (that counselling had improved his memory) and the jury was entitled to accept it after thorough cross-examination and a comprehensive, unchallenged jury charge.

The majority further held that the Crown was not required to adduce further evidence or expert evidence regarding the role of counselling in refining memory.

The convictions were restored; Brown and Rowe JJ. dissented, substantially for the reasons of Justice White below.