Supreme Court of Canada

Appeal Heard: April 22, 2024 Judgment Rendered: April 22, 2024 Docket: 40941

Between: His Majesty The King, Appellant and: D.F., Respondent

Coram: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O'Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.

Judgment Read By: Wagner C.J. (para. 1)

Majority: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O'Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.

Dissent: Rowe J.

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

Indexed as: R. v. D.F.

2024 SCC 14

File No.: 40941.

2024: April 22.

Present: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O'Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.

On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Subject Matter

Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Child witness — Misapprehension of evidence — Sufficiency of reasons — Accused convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference — Majority of Court of Appeal setting aside convictions and ordering new trial on basis that trial judge misapprehended child complainant's evidence on matter of substance and that his reasons failed to grapple with inconsistencies in evidence of complainant and her mother — Dissenting judge concluding that trial judge applied common sense approach to assessing evidence of child witnesses and therefore that there was no misapprehension of evidence and reasons were sufficient — Convictions restored.

Appeal

APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Hourigan, Brown and Monahan JJ.A.), 2023 ONCA 584, 430 C.C.C. (3d) 171, 490 D.L.R. (4th) 622, [2023] O.J. No. 3994 (Lexis), 2023 CarswellOnt 13952 (WL), setting aside the convictions of the accused for sexual assault and sexual interference and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed, Rowe J. dissenting.

Counsel

Manasvin Goswami and Étienne Lacombe, for the appellant.

Lance Beechener, for the respondent.

Judgment

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1] The Chief Justice — For the reasons of Hourigan J.A., dissenting at the Ontario Court of Appeal (2023 ONCA 584, 430 C.C.C. (3d) 171), a majority of this Court would allow the appeal. Justice Rowe, dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal, relying on paras. 50 and 52 of the reasons of Monahan J.A. relating to the legal error of failure by the trial judge to provide sufficient reasons. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, and the convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault are restored.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors

Solicitor for the appellant: Ministry of the Attorney General, Crown Law Office – Criminal, Toronto.

Solicitors for the respondent: Posner Craig Stein, Toronto.