Supreme Court

Indictment And Information

Variance in date specified did not prejudice accused

Accused charged with sexual interference against his daughter in April or May 2002. Complainant testifying offence took place in summer of 2001. Accused denied offence occurred and testified he had not moved into apartment identified by complainant as crime scene until September 2002. Trial judge acceding to Crown’s request to amend information after defence presented case. Trial judge found offence occurred as described by complainant, but after September 2002. Court of Appeal allowing accused’s appeal and ordering new trial. Crown appeal to S.C.C. allowed and conviction restored. Variance in date specified in information and date arising from evidence did not prejudice accused as defence was based entirely on credibility.

R. v. D. (S.)

(Mar. 21, 2011, S.C.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ., File No. 33842) Decision at 95 W.C.B. (2d) 145 reversed. Facts taken from lower court decision. 95 W.C.B. (2d) 144 (3 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?