R. v. C.K-D., 2016 SCC 41, [2016] 2 SCR 160

  

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

 

Citation: R. v. C.K-D., 2016 SCC 41, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 160

Reference of a matter heard: October 14, 2016 Order: October 14, 2016 Docket: 36877

 

 

Between:

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant

 

and

 

C.K-D.

Respondent

 

 

Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Wagner, Côté and Brown JJ.

 

Reasons for Order: (para. 1)

Wagner J. (Abella, Moldaver, Côté and Brown JJ. concurring)

 

 

 

R. v. C.K-D., 2016 SCC 41, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 160

 

 

 

 

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                                 Appellant

v.

C.K-D.                                                                                                          Respondent

 

 

 

Indexed as:  R. v. C.K-D.

 

 

 

2016 SCC 41

 

 

 

File No.:  36877.

 

 

 

2016:  October 14.

 

 

 

Present:  Abella, Moldaver, Wagner, Côté and Brown JJ.

 

 

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

 

                    Criminal law — Charge to jury — Testimony of children — 17-year-old complainant testifying about alleged events that took place when she was 12 years old — Trial judge instructing jury to consider memory of 12-year-old — Trial judge’s charge to jury as a whole conveying correct instruction — Accused’s convictions restored.

 

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Sharpe, Hourigan and Benotto JJ.A.), 2016 ONCA 66, [2016] O.J. No. 385 (QL), 2016 CarswellOnt 868 (WL Can.), setting aside the accused’s convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference entered by Aitken J. and ordering a new trial.  Appeal allowed.

 

                    Michael Bernstein, for the appellant.

 

                    Louis P. Strezos, Jill R. Presser and Jeff Marshman, for the respondent.

 

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

[1]               Wagner J. — The trial judge’s charge to the jury as a whole conveyed the correct instruction to the jury on the proper approach to assessing A.Y.’s evidence and credibility. On this basis, the appeal should be allowed and the convictions restored.

 

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitor for the appellant:  Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.

 

                    Solicitors for the respondent:  Louis P. Strezos, Toronto; Presser Barristers, Toronto.