SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Appeal Heard: January 21, 2025 Judgment Rendered: January 21, 2025 Docket: 41220

Between: His Majesty The King Appellant and Lucas Hanrahan Respondent - and - Attorney General of Ontario Intervener Coram: Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.

Judgment Read By: (paras. 1 to 2)

Wagner C.J.

Majority:

Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.

Dissent:

Kasirer and Jamal JJ.

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

His Majesty The King Appellant

v.

Lucas Hanrahan Respondent

and

Attorney General of Ontario Intervener

Indexed as: R. v. Hanrahan

2025 SCC 1

File No.: 41220.

2025: January 21.

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

on appeal from the court of appeal of newfoundland and labrador

Criminal law — Sexual assault — Evidence — Admissibility — Text messages — Complainant’s sexual activity — Accused charged with sexual assault — Trial judge restricting Crown’s use of text message exchange between accused and complainant at trial and allowing accused’s application for admission of evidence of complainant’s prior sexual history — Accused acquitted by jury — Majority of Court of Appeal dismissing Crown’s appeal from acquittal — Majority concluding that trial judge’s treatment of text message evidence was reasonable exercise of trial management power and that prior sexual history evidence was properly admitted —Acquittal upheld .

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 276.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal (Goodridge, Knickle and O’Brien JJ.A.), 2024 NLCA 9 , 435 C.C.C. (3d) 163 , [2024] N.J. No. 60 (Lexis) , 2024 CarswellNfld 78 (WL) , affirming the acquittal of the accused. Appeal dismissed, Kasirer and Jamal JJ. dissenting.

Kathleen O’Reilly , K.C. , for the appellant.

Robert Escott , for the respondent.

Katherine Beaudoin and Meaghan Cunningham , for the intervener.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[ 1 ] The Chief Justice — A majority of this Court would dismiss the appeal substantially for the reasons of the majority at the Court of Appeal ( 2024 NLCA 9 , 435 C.C.C. (3d) 163 ). Justices Kasirer and Jamal would have allowed the appeal. They substantially agree with the dissenting judge that the trial judge erred in law by admitting evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual history with the respondent following the application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, and that this error had a material bearing on the acquittal.

[ 2 ] Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: Special Prosecutions Office – Department of Justice & Public Safety, St. John’s.

Solicitors for the respondent: Gittens, de Beer & Associates, St. John’s.

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