R. v. Langan

2020 SCC 33

Supreme Court of Canada

Appeal Heard and Judgment Rendered: November 5, 2020 | File No.: 39019

Coram: Abella, Côté, Brown, Martin and Kasirer JJ.

Majority: Abella, Martin and Kasirer JJ.

Dissent: Côté and Brown JJ.

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen — Appellant

v.

David Roy Langan — Respondent

— and —

Attorney General of Ontario, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario), Independent Criminal Defence Advocacy Society and Canadian Association for Equality — Interveners

Headnote

Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Assessment — Prior consistent statements — Text messages exchanged between complainant and accused before and after alleged offence admitted into evidence at accused's sexual assault trial — Accused convicted — Majority of Court of Appeal finding trial judge erred by using text messages as prior consistent statements to corroborate complainant's evidence, by failing to hold voir dire to determine relevance of text messages, and in approach to W.(D.) analysis — Majority setting aside conviction and ordering new trial — Dissenting judge finding no errors of law in trial judge's reasons — Conviction restored.

Appeal

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Bauman C.J.B.C. and MacKenzie and Stromberg-Stein JJ.A.), 2019 BCCA 467, 383 C.C.C. (3d) 516, 452 D.L.R. (4th) 178, [2019] B.C.J. No. 2450 (QL), 2019 CarswellBC 3744 (WL Can.), setting aside the conviction of the accused for sexual assault and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed, Côté and Brown JJ. dissenting.

Counsel

For the appellant: C. Geoff Baragar, Q.C., and Lauren A. Chu

For the respondent: Jerry Steele and Elliot Holzman

For the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario: Christine Bartlett-Hugues

For the intervener the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario): Adam Weisberg

For the intervener the Independent Criminal Defence Advocacy Society: Eric Purtzki

For the intervener the Canadian Association for Equality: Daniel P. Sommers

Judgment

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1] Abella J. — A majority is of the view to allow the appeal for the reasons of Chief Justice Bauman. Justices Côté and Brown would dismiss substantially for the reasons of Justice Stromberg-Stein.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors

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

Solicitors for the respondent: Steele Law Corporation, Victoria.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario: Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.

Solicitors for the intervener the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario): Weisberg Law, Toronto.

Solicitors for the intervener the Independent Criminal Defence Advocacy Society: Melville Law Chambers, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the intervener the Canadian Association for Equality: Da Cruz Sommers, Toronto.