Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Citation: R. v. Mehari, 2020 SCC 40, [2020] 3 S.C.R. 782

 

Appeal Heard: December 4, 2020

Judgment Rendered: December 4, 2020

Docket: 39109

 

 

Between:

 

Her Majesty The Queen

Appellant

 

and

 

Awet Mehari

Respondent

 

 

Coram: Abella, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ.

Unanimous Judgment Read By:

(paras. 1 to 2)

Martin J.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Her Majesty The Queen                                                                                 Appellant

v.

Awet Mehari                                                                                                Respondent

 

Indexed as: R. v. Mehari

2020 SCC 40

File No.: 39109.

2020: December 4.

Present: Abella, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for saskatchewan

                    Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Credibility — Uneven scrutiny — Trial judge convicting accused of sexual assault — Majority of Court of Appeal finding trial judge erred in credibility assessment by applying different level of scrutiny to evidence of accused compared to that of complainant and ordering new trial — Trial judge made no error warranting intervention on appeal — Matter remitted to Court of Appeal to decide other grounds of appeal.

 

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Whitmore, Leurer and Kalmakoff JJ.A.), 2020 SKCA 37, 387 C.C.C. (3d) 147, [2020] S.J. No. 100 (QL), 2020 CarswellSask 136 (WL Can.), setting aside the conviction of the accused for sexual assault and ordering a new trial. Appeal allowed.

 

                    W. Dean Sinclair, Q.C., for the appellant.

 

                    Aaron A. Fox, Q.C., and Darren Kraushaar, for the respondent.

 

                    The following is the judgment delivered orally by

[1]               The Court — This Court has not decided whether uneven scrutiny, if it exists, can amount to an independent ground of appeal or a separate and distinct error of law. In any event, we see no error in respect of this argument that would have warranted intervention on appeal.

[2]               Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to the Court of Appeal to decide the grounds of appeal the majority did not address.

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitor for the appellant: Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Regina.

 

                    Solicitors for the respondent: McDougall Gauley, Regina.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.