R. v. Bédard, 2003 SCC 56, [2003] 2 SCR 621

R. v. Bédard, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 621, 2003 SCC 56

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                                  Appellant

v.

Étienne Bédard                                                                                              Respondent

and

Attorney General of Ontario                                                                          Intervener

Indexed as:  R. v. Bédard

Neutral citation:  2003 SCC 56.

File No.:  29201.

2003:  October 7.

Present:  Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec

Criminal law — Sexual offences — Evidence — Change in child’s behaviour — Whether evidence of change in child’s behaviour should be corroborated by expert evidence.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [2002] Q.J. No. 394 (QL) (sub nom. R. v. É.B.), allowing the accused’s appeal and entering a verdict of acquittal with respect to the three sexual offences.  Appeal dismissed.

Sébastien Bergeron‑Guyard, for the appellant.

Stéphane Poulin, for the respondent.

Trevor Shaw, for the intervener.

English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by

1                                   LeBel J. — Having examined the appeal record and the arguments made by the parties, the Court is unanimously of the view that the appeal should be dismissed.  However, it is not necessary to deal with all the questions of law raised in this appeal.  Nonetheless, with respect to the question of the need for expert evidence concerning the change in behaviour of the child the prosecution alleges was assaulted by the respondent, it appears that the Quebec Court of Appeal never intended to impose a rule of law requiring such evidence in all circumstances.  It is sufficient to note that the nature of the evidence presented in the Court of Québec justifies the conclusion that can be drawn from the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision that the verdict of guilty handed down by the trial judge was unreasonable.  Although admissible, the evidence presented in support of the prosecution could not support a finding that the accused was guilty, on the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant:  Attorney General’s Prosecutor, Québec.

Solicitors for the respondent:  Bertrand, Poulin, Québec.

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