D. Fletcher Dawson

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting a two-and-a-half-year-old child.

At trial, the Crown did not call the child to testify, but instead introduced out-of-court statements made by the child to others.

The trial judge admitted the statements without conducting a formal inquiry into whether it was necessary to rely on hearsay rather than calling the child.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the trial judge erred in failing to make a formal finding of necessity, the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The uncontradicted expert evidence established that the child would have been traumatized by testifying and lacked testimonial competence, meaning a trial judge would inevitably have found the necessity requirement met.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with murder.

At trial, the Crown relied on hearsay evidence of telephone calls made by the deceased to her mother on the night of her death, as well as character evidence suggesting the accused was a drug smuggler.

The accused was convicted, but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the hearsay and character evidence inadmissible.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal.

The Court held that while the first two telephone calls were admissible under the principled approach to hearsay based on necessity and reliability, the third call lacked a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness.

Furthermore, the character evidence was highly prejudicial and irrelevant to the murder charge, warranting a new trial.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeal, set aside their acquittals, and ordered new trials on charges of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's decision.