The Case: R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 In short: Appellate courts should adhere to established legal principles when assessing a trial judge's credibility or reliability assessments, considering whether alleged assumptions are indeed findings based on evidence, and applying the appropriate standard of review, such as correctness, for errors of law like reliance on myths, stereotypes, or biases. The Bottom Line: Per Wagner C.J. and Côté, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ: The rejection of a proposed rule against ungrounded common-sense assumptions underscores its divergence from established legal principles, particularly in sexual assault cases, where myths and stereotypes warrant distinct treatment. This rule, misaligned with the protective framework for sexual assault complainants, would extend questioning into irrelevant sexual history, potentially reviving prejudice. It contradicts appellate deference to trial judges and risks appellate overreach into credibility assessments. Appellate courts should adhere to existing standards, distinguishing palpable errors from reasonable assumptions, ensuring fairness without undermining trial judge expertise. Errors of law, such as reliance on stereotypes, warrant correction, but unsubstantiated assumptions demand deference, safeguarding the integrity of trial proceedings. Practice Point: At trial, take a coherent position regarding the difference between facts and assumptions. Consider using Rowe's proposed framework to protect the record on appeal: (1) What generalized expectation can the Judge rely on in their reasoning process? (2) Outline why it is (or isn't) reasonable to rely on this particular general expectation in the unique circumstances of this case? (3) Be clear that the Trial Judge cannot rely on the generalized expectation as itself a conclusive and indisputable fact.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |