Supreme Court of Canada
Indexed as: R. v. Chatillon
Citation: 2023 SCC 7
File No.: 40331
Appeal Heard: March 15, 2023 | Judgment Rendered: March 15, 2023
Parties
His Majesty The King — Appellant
v.
Olivier Chatillon — Respondent
and
Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense — Intervener
Official English Translation
Coram
Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and O'Bonsawin JJ.
Judgment Read By: Wagner C.J. (paras. 1 to 3)
Majority: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer and O'Bonsawin JJ.
Dissent: Côté J.
Headnote
Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Admissions — Accused voluntarily making admissions, during treatment process, concerning acts of sexual nature committed by him against child — Admissions sent to director of youth protection and then to police with accused's consent — Accused charged with sexual assault — Accused filing motion to exclude admissions — Trial judge dismissing motion on ground that application of Wigmore criteria did not result in admissions being inadmissible — Accused convicted of sexual assault — Majority of Court of Appeal entering acquittal on ground that admissions were inadmissible — Dissenting judge finding that admissions were admissible because accused had expressly waived their confidentiality by consenting to their disclosure — Conviction restored.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Vauclair, Mainville and Healy JJ.A.), 2022 QCCA 1072, 83 C.R. (7th) 403, [2022] J.Q. no 7757 (QL), 2022 CarswellQue 11441 (WL), setting aside the conviction of the accused for sexual assault and entering an acquittal. Appeal allowed, Côté J. dissenting.
Counsel
For the appellant: Maxime Hébrard and Julien Fitzgerald
For the respondent: Nicolas Lemyre‑Cossette and Marie‑Pier Boulet
For the intervener: Cynthia Lacombe
Judgment
English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by
Wagner C.J. —
[1] A majority of the Court is of the view that the appeal should be allowed on the sole issue of the respondent's consent to the disclosure of his admissions, discussed by the dissenting judge at paras. 83‑85 of the reasons (2022 QCCA 1072, 83 C.R. (7th) 403). In the Court's opinion, this is sufficient to dispose of the appeal.
[2] Côté J. would have dismissed the appeal, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal.
[3] The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the respondent's conviction is restored.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors
Solicitor for the appellant: Procureur aux poursuites criminelles et pénales, Longueuil.
Solicitors for the respondent: Poitras, Fournier, Cossette, Granby; BMD, Laval.
Solicitors for the intervener: BMD, Laval.