R. v. Hamelin, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 273

Her Majesty The Queen Appellant

v.

Jean-Pierre Hamelin Respondent

and

The Attorney General for Ontario Intervener

Indexed as: R. v. Hamelin

Neutral citation: 2000 SCC 42.

File No.: 27250.

2000: October 4.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Arbour JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec

Criminal law – Evidence – Expert evidence – Sexual offences -- Whether trial judge erred in failing to take expert testimony into account.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (1999), 1999 QC CA 13545, 135 C.C.C. (3d) 228, [1999] Q.J. No. 374 (QL) (sub nom. R. v. J.H.), J.E. 99-599, allowing the accused’s appeal from his convictions on charges of sexual touching and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed, Iacobucci, Major and Arbour JJ. dissenting.

Jacques Blais and Carole Lebeuf, for the appellant.

Pierre Poupart and François Dadour, for the respondent.

M. David Lepofsky and Christopher Webb, for the intervener.

English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by

[1] L’Heureux-Dubé J. — A majority of us would allow the appeal. Unlike the Court of Appeal, we are of the view that the trial judge neither was mistaken about the purpose of the expert evidence nor abused his discretion in dealing with the expert’s testimony.

[2] The appeal is accordingly allowed by a majority decision.

[3] Iacobucci, Major and Arbour JJ. would have dismissed the appeal and adopted the reasons of LeBel J.A.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: The Attorney General’s prosecutor, Trois-Rivières, Quebec.

Solicitors for the respondent: Poupart & Marquis, Montréal.

Solicitor for the intervener: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.