R. v. W. (D.D.)

R. v. W. (D.D.)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1998-10-15
Report
[1998] 2 SCR 681
Case number
25970
Judges
Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil
On appeal from
British Columbia
Subjects
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 25970
Decision Content
R. v. W. (D.D.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 681
D.D.W. Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
The Attorney general of Canada, the Attorney general
for Ontario, the Attorney general of Quebec, the Attorney
general of British Columbia and the Attorney general
for Alberta Interveners
Indexed as: R. v. W. (D.D.)
File No.: 25970.
1998: October 15.
Present: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Criminal law -- Sexual offences -- Evidence -- Adoption records -- Right to fair trial.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 191, 147 W.A.C. 191, 114 C.C.C. (3d) 506, dismissing the accused’s appeal from his convictions by a jury for incest, rape and indecent assault. Appeal dismissed.
Charles Lugosi, Russel W. Cornett and Craig Sicotte, for the appellant.
William F. Ehrcke, Q.C., for the respondent.
Nancy L. Irving, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
Christine Barlett-Hughes and Susan M. Chapman, for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario.
Written submissions only by Jacques Gauvin, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.
George H. Copley, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia.
Written submissions only by Jack Watson, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
//Gonthier J.//
1 Gonthier J. -- We are all of the view that the appeal must be dismissed for the reasons of Chief Justice McEachern and Justice Hall on the issues before us other than the indivisibility of the Crown and that it is unnecessary to deal with the latter.
2 As we find no violation of the appellant’s right to a fair trial, it is also unnecessary to answer the constitutional questions.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant: Lugosi & Cornett, Prince George.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada: The Department of Justice, Ottawa.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Ontario: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: The Department of Justice, Sainte-Foy.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria.
Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta: The Attorney General for Alberta, Edmonton.