Susanne Elliott

Two appeals arising from sexual assault convictions that were overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on the basis of a proposed 'rule against ungrounded common-sense assumptions'.

The majority declined to recognize this rule as giving rise to an error of law, holding that credibility and reliability assessments — including reliance on common-sense assumptions — are reviewable only for palpable and overriding error absent a recognized error of law such as reliance on myths and stereotypes about complainants.

Applying the correct standard of palpable and overriding error, the majority found no reviewable errors in either trial judge's credibility findings and restored both convictions.

Rowe J. concurred in the result but proposed a three-question framework for appellate review of generalized expectations, holding that reliance on an unreasonable generalized expectation constitutes an error of law reviewable on correctness.

Three accused were convicted of aggravated assault and firearm offences in connection with a drive-by shooting, with the Crown's case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The trial judge found that the only rational inference from the evidence was that the Crown proved all essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, holding the verdicts were not unreasonable.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the further appeals, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal majority.

The Court confirmed that despite a misstatement of law regarding circumstantial evidence in the trial reasons, the trial judge correctly applied the law, making resort to the curative proviso unnecessary.