Wayne Gorman

The accused was charged with kidnapping and sexual assault of a mentally disabled woman.

At trial, the Crown did not call the complainant to testify, instead relying on expert evidence to establish her incompetence and seeking to admit her out-of-court statements under the principled approach to hearsay.

The trial judge admitted the statements and convicted the accused of kidnapping and assault causing bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal quashed the assault conviction and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the expert evidence was improperly admitted as testimonial competence is within the trial judge's expertise, and that necessity for admitting hearsay was not established since the complainant was available and there was no evidence that testifying would cause her trauma.

The appellant was convicted of assault and extortion following a jury trial where the complainant and the accused gave contradictory versions of events.

The trial judge's charge to the jury, given prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Lifchus, described reasonable doubt as a 'real' or 'serious' doubt and asked the jury to assess 'all of the evidence' to determine guilt.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the jury charge defective.

The charge failed to clearly explain that the standard of proof is higher than a balance of probabilities but less than absolute certainty, and it failed to properly instruct the jury on how to handle conflicting evidence in accordance with W. (D.).

The Crown appealed a 21-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for historical convictions of indecent assault and gross indecency against a child.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying the principles from R. v. Proulx, dismissed the appeal on equal division.

The majority found that the trial judge's decision to impose a conditional sentence was not demonstrably unfit and adequately addressed denunciation and deterrence through strict conditions like house arrest.

The dissenting judges argued the sentence overemphasized restorative objectives and failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.