The appellant was convicted after trial before a judge alone of thirteen counts relating to various offences committed against his common law spouse. Applying the principles set out in R. v. W.(D.),  1 S.C.R. 742, the trial judge concluded that the complainant had not been motivated to lie, and that the evidence did not give rise to such an inference. The trial judge accepted the complainant’s evidence and found that it did not raise a reasonable doubt, and she rejected the appellant’s evidence and concluded that it also did not raise a reasonable doubt.
A majority of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the convictions. In the majority’s view, the trial judge did not misapply W.(D.) and she did not err in assessing the complainant’s credibility. In dissent, Bryson J.A. would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Criminal law - Evidence - Criminal law — Evidence — Credibility — Whether the trial judge erred in her application of the test in R. v. W.(D.),  1 S.C.R. 742 — Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the Crown witness, the complainant.
(Nova Scotia) (Criminal) (As of Right)
This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).