Rekha Malaviya

The Crown appealed a Manitoba Court of Appeal decision reducing a six-year sentence for sexual interference with a four-year-old child to four and one-half years.

The sentencing judge had employed a higher starting point despite the absence of a formal trust relationship, relying on the aggravating nature of the offence.

The Court of Appeal found an error in principle.

The Supreme Court allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal mischaracterized the sentencing judge's reasoning and that no error in principle was made.

The Court provided comprehensive guidance on sentencing for sexual offences against children, directing that sentences must increase to reflect Parliament's legislative initiatives and society's deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children.

The Court held that defence evidence about an unknown third party suspect is governed by general admissibility principles: relevance plus a balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect.

The trial judge erred by requiring proof on a balance of probabilities that the similar incident occurred and by treating the issue as known third party suspect evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the order for a new trial was upheld.

In this criminal appeal, the accused challenged a sexual assault conviction on the basis that the trial judge failed to properly assess reliability and credibility.

The Court upheld the appellate majority’s conclusion that the trial judge’s reasons demonstrated consideration of both reliability and credibility concerns.

The Court adopted the reasoning of the intermediate appellate judge cited at para. 48.

The conviction remained undisturbed and the appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Manitoba Court of Appeal's decision upholding the respondent's acquittal on a charge of uttering threats to cause death contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused had repeatedly told his ex-girlfriend he would kill her if she proceeded with an abortion.

The trial judge found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused intended his words to intimidate, considering the recipient's testimony that she did not take the threats seriously.

The majority (4-3) held the trial judge correctly stated the law and properly considered the recipient's evidence as context for assessing mens rea.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by making the recipient's perception the determinative factor in assessing intent.