Supreme Court Judgments

r. v. W.O.

W.O.                                                                                                                 Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                             Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. W.O.

2021 SCC 8

File No.: 39245.

2021: February 19.

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

on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario

                    Criminal law — Trial — Judgments — Reasons for judgment — Sufficiency of reasons — Evidence — Credibility — Generalizations and stereotypes — Timing of complaint — Accused convicted at trial of sexual offences against complainant daughter — Accused appealing convictions on basis that trial judge over‑extended or improperly relied on principles from governing cases regarding timing of complaint, thereby side‑stepping inconsistencies in complainant’s evidence, and that trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons on how he resolved inconsistencies — Majority of Court of Appeal dismissing accused’s appeal — Convictions upheld.

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (Hoy A.C.J.O. and Paciocco and Nordheimer JJ.A.), 2020 ONCA 392, 388 C.C.C. (3d) 435, 454 D.L.R. (4th) 54, [2020] O.J. No. 2656 (QL), 2020 CarswellOnt 8270 (WL), affirming the convictions of the accused for incest and sexual interference. Appeal dismissed.

                    R. Craig Bottomley and Mayleah Quenneville, for the appellant.

                    Vallery Bayly and Roger Pinnock, for the respondent.

                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1]        Côté J. — We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of Hoy A.C.J.

                    Judgment accordingly.

                    Solicitors for the appellant: Bottomley Barristers, Toronto.

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