R. v. M. (D.B.), 1991 CanLII 89 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 669

D.B.M. Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. M. (D.B.)

File No.: 21663.

1991: March 26.

Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Stevenson, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Criminal law ‑‑ Sexual offences ‑‑ Evidence ‑‑ Evidence of complainant's prior sexual conduct excluded ‑‑ Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that trial judge properly excluded evidence ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, s. 142(1)(b).

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, s. 142(1)(b) [en. 1974‑75‑76, c. 93, s. 8].

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1989), 1989 CanLII 7185 (BC CA), 51 C.C.C. (3d) 546, dismissing the accused's appeal from his convictions on charges of rape and indecent assault. Appeal dismissed.

Peter A. Hart, for the appellant.

William Ehrcke, for the respondent.

//Lamer C.J.//

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We find no error in the majority of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia's refusal to interfere in the trial judge's exercise of his discretion under s. 142(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, in force in 1977.

We agree with the reasons of the majority in support of their conclusion and we accordingly dismiss this appeal.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: Peter A. Hart, Vancouver.

Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.