R. v. V.C.A.S., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 414, 2002 SCC 36
V.C.A.S. Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. V.C.A.S.
Neutral citation: 2002 SCC 36.
File No.: 28671.
2002: April 17.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for manitoba
Criminal law – Sexual assault -- Accused’s conviction for sexual assault upheld by Court of Appeal – No reason to interfere with Court of Appeal’s judgment.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal (2001), 156 Man. R. (2d) 198, 246 W.A.C. 198, [2001] M.J. No. 249 (QL), 2001 MBCA 85, upholding the accused’s conviction for sexual assault. Appeal dismissed, LeBel J. dissenting.
Mark Wasyliw and Greg Brodsky, Q.C., for the appellant.
Gregg Lawlor, for the respondent.
The following is the judgment delivered orally by
[1] Iacobucci J. – This appeal comes to us as of right.
[2] At the outset, it is important to note the essential supervisory role of courts of appeal in carefully scrutinizing the reasonableness of verdicts. In this respect, we are mindful of the cogent factors identified by Twaddle J.A., dissenting in the Manitoba Court of Appeal in this case. However, in the final analysis, we do not see any reason to differ with the disposition arrived at by Helper J.A. for the majority of the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. LeBel J., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal substantially for the reasons of Twaddle J.A., and quashed the conviction for sexual assault.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Brodsky & Company, Winnipeg.
Solicitor for the respondent: Manitoba Justice, Winnipeg.