R.A. v. Her Majesty The Queen, 2018 SCC 13, [2018] 1 SCR 307

  

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

Citation: R. v. R.A., 2018 SCC 13, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 307

Appeal heard: March 23, 2018 Judgment rendered: March 23, 2018 Docket: 37757

 

Between:

R.A.

Appellant

 

and

 

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

Coram: Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ.

 

Reasons for Judgment: (para. 1)

Moldaver J. (Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ. concurring)

 

 

 

 

 

 

R. v. R.A., 2018 SCC 13, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 307

 

 

 

R.A.                                                                                                                  Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                              Respondent

 

 

 

Indexed as: R. v. R.A.

 

 

 

2018 SCC 13

 

 

 

File No.: 37757.

 

 

 

2018: March 23.

 

 

 

Present: Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté and Rowe JJ.

 

 

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

 

                    Criminal law — Trial — Judgments — Reasons for judgment — Sufficiency of reasons — Accused convicted of sexual interference — Accused arguing on appeal that trial judge failed to resolve critical inconsistency in complainant’s evidence and failed to explain why he accepted complainant’s evidence and rejected accused’s evidence — Court of Appeal holding that trial judge’s analysis reflected careful and sensitive approach to evidence as a whole and that trial judge’s reasons were responsive to live issues in case and to parties’ key arguments — Conviction upheld.

 

 

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Gillese, Huscroft and Trotter JJ.A.), 2017 ONCA 714, 355 C.C.C. (3d) 400, [2017] O.J. No. 4772 (QL), 2017 CarswellOnt 14114 (WL Can.), affirming the conviction entered by Tausendfreund J., 2015 ONSC 7494, [2015] O.J. No. 6791 (QL), 2015 CarswellOnt 19536 (WL Can.). Appeal dismissed, Gascon J. dissenting.

 

                    Howard L. Krongold, for the appellant.

 

                    Rachel Young and Alexander Alvaro, for the respondent.

 

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1]                              Moldaver J. — A majority of the Court would dismiss the appeal, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal. Justice Gascon, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal for the reasons of Justice Trotter.

                   

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitors for the appellant: Abergel Goldstein & Partners, Ottawa.

 

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