R. v. W.S. (R.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 391
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
R.W.S. Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. W.S. (R.)
File No.: 26757.
1999: March 17.
Present: Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for manitoba
Criminal law -- Sexual offences -- Credibility -- Trial judge finding accused’s testimony failed to raise reasonable doubt -- Accused properly convicted.
Cases Cited
Applied: R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (1998), 129 Man. R. (2d) 116, 180 W.A.C. 116, [1998] M.J. No. 334 (QL), allowing an appeal from conviction by Steel J. and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed.
Gregg Lawlor, for the appellant.
John A. McAmmond, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
Cory J.
[1] Cory J. ‑‑ We are all in agreement that this appeal must be allowed for the reasons of Kroft J.A., dissenting, in the Court of Appeal (1998), 129 Man. R. (2d) 116. The essence of those reasons is expressed in this paragraph, at pp. 119-20:
In expressing her reasons, [the trial judge] not only indicated that the principles laid down in R. v. D.W. [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 applied, she carefully explained why she did not believe the accused and why his testimony failed to raise any reasonable doubt. She also explained in considerable detail why she found the complainant to be credible, notwithstanding the possible motive on her part to punish her father. Finally, she recognized the necessity that she address all of the evidence when determining whether or not the Crown had proved its case. After going through this exercise in a meaningful way, she declared herself to be satisfied on all counts of the guilt of the accused.
[2] In the result, the appeal is allowed, the Order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the conviction is restored.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellant: The Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Solicitors for the respondent: Walsh, McKay and Company, Winnipeg.