Supreme Court of Canada

Indexed as: R. v. Vu

2024 SCC 1

File No.: 40655

Appeal Heard: January 16, 2024 Judgment Rendered: January 16, 2024

Parties

His Majesty The King — Appellant

v.

Private D.T. Vu — Respondent

Coram

Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Jamal, O'Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.

Judgment Read By: Wagner C.J. (paras. 1 to 4)

Majority: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Jamal and Moreau JJ.

Dissent: O'Bonsawin J.

Note

Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.

Headnote

on appeal from the court martial appeal court of canada

Criminal law — Sexual assault — Evidence — Assessment — Accused acquitted of sexual assault by military judge — Majority of Court of Appeal dismissing Crown's appeal from acquittal and concluding military judge did not fail to consider all evidence cumulatively and did not assess evidence based on wrong legal principles — Acquittal upheld.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (Bell C.J. and McVeigh and Trotter JJ.A.), 2023 CMAC 2, 488 D.L.R. (4th) 631, [2023] C.M.A.J. No. 2 (Lexis), 2023 CarswellNat 450 (WL), affirming the acquittal entered by Pelletier M.J., 2021 CM 4012, 2021 CarswellNat 9938 (WL). Appeal dismissed, O'Bonsawin J. dissenting.

Counsel

Karl Lacharité and Dominic Martin, for the appellant.

Francesca Ferguson and Nooral Ahmed, for the respondent.

Solicitor for the appellant: Canadian Military Prosecution Service, Ottawa.

Solicitor for the respondent: Defence Counsel Services, Gatineau.

Judgment

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1] The Chief Justice — The respondent was acquitted of sexual assault before the Court Martial (2021 CM 4012). The Crown appealed, arguing that the military judge failed to consider all of the evidence cumulatively and assessed the evidence on the wrong legal principles. A majority of the Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the Crown's appeal (2023 CMAC 2, 488 D.L.R. (4th) 631). Justice McVeigh, in dissent, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

[2] The Crown appeals to this Court as of right.

[3] A majority of the Court is of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court Martial Appeal Court. The military judge's assessment of the evidence was thorough and cumulative. Reading the judgment as a whole, the military judge did not adopt a piecemeal or narrow approach to the evidence. In addition, we are not persuaded that the military judge applied the wrong legal principles. While we agree with all of the justices of the Court Martial Appeal Court that the military judge engaged in some improper speculation, we share the majority's view that these comments did not undermine the military judge's fundamental findings.

[4] For her part, Justice O'Bonsawin would allow the appeal for the reasons of Justice McVeigh, at paras. 39‑90 and 119‑26. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.