Shelley Hallett

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which quashed the accused's conviction for sexual offences and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence without the benefit of the Court's reasons in R. v. Handy.

The appellant was convicted of robbery, assault causing bodily harm, kidnapping, and possession of a dangerous weapon after the victim was severely beaten.

At trial, the defence sought to cross-examine Crown witnesses on the theory that the beating was over a drug debt, based on police reports.

The trial judge ruled that defence counsel could only pursue this cross-examination if she provided substantive evidence of the drug debt theory, forcing the defence to call police officers as witnesses and lose the right to address the jury last.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred in law by requiring an evidentiary foundation rather than a good faith basis for the cross-examination.

The Court concluded the error fatally impacted the fairness of the trial and could not be saved by the curative proviso, allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial.