Brent R. Anderson

Two appeals arising from sexual assault convictions that were overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on the basis of a proposed 'rule against ungrounded common-sense assumptions'.

The majority declined to recognize this rule as giving rise to an error of law, holding that credibility and reliability assessments — including reliance on common-sense assumptions — are reviewable only for palpable and overriding error absent a recognized error of law such as reliance on myths and stereotypes about complainants.

Applying the correct standard of palpable and overriding error, the majority found no reviewable errors in either trial judge's credibility findings and restored both convictions.

Rowe J. concurred in the result but proposed a three-question framework for appellate review of generalized expectations, holding that reliance on an unreasonable generalized expectation constitutes an error of law reviewable on correctness.

The appeal considered whether the confessions rule applies to accused statements used only on a Charter voir dire, whether police had exigent circumstances under s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a warrantless home entry, and whether seized evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The majority held the confessions rule does not govern this voir dire use, found the warrantless entry violated s. 8 because obtaining a warrant was practicable, and excluded the resulting evidence.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were set aside, and acquittals were entered.

The Crown appealed a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision that had set aside the respondent's convictions for forcible confinement, overcoming resistance to commission of an offence, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and assault causing bodily harm, and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal majority had held that the trial judge's denial of the respondent's severance application resulted in injustice.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not act unjudicially in denying the severance application and that no injustice resulted from the denial.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent hospital and the Ontario Hospital Association, alleging breaches of the duty to bargain in good faith and interference with statutory rights regarding the discontinuance of extended tours.

The respondents raised several preliminary objections, including that the complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case, that the Board should defer to arbitration, that the complaint lacked particularity, and that it was untimely.

The Board dismissed all preliminary objections, finding that the complaint raised complex issues of law and policy that required a full hearing on the merits, and that the issues transcended the collective agreement such that deferral to arbitration was inappropriate.