Case Summary: R. v. M.S.A.
Written by Pamela Cross, LLB, LLD
This is a criminal law case that intersects with a family law case in an interesting way.
The accused and the complainant were married for a number of years, and had two children together. After they separated, and after initial family court proceedings had concluded, the husband was charged with seven counts of sexual assault, two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of assault with respect to incidents that had taken place during the marriage.
At trial, Justice Monahan found the husband guilty of all but one of the charges. The husband appealed his convictions on several grounds, of which this summary examines only one: the relevance of family court proceedings on the credibility of the wife’s evidence in the criminal trial.
The husband argued that his wife had fabricated the allegations relating to every charge, claiming that she had a motive to lie because if he were convicted she would benefit financially in the context of their family law case.
When the wife testified at the criminal trial, she explained that she did not initially intend to report the abuse to police. The parties had separated, and she was involved in family law proceedings. However, following a case conference in family court, she received a video from the husband’s father showing a woman being pushed into a grave and buried alive. At this point, she feared for her life, so made a statement to the police, who charged the husband.
In making his decision, Justice Manahan noted that the presumption of innocence is “a cornerstone of our criminal justice system.”
“The presumption of innocence, and along with it the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, are important and necessary safeguards to ensure that no innocent person is convicted of an offence and wrongfully deprived of his or her liberty. . . . This [beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof] is a heavy burden that remains on the Crown and never shifts.”
He also pointed out that the fact that the husband exercised his right to silence and not testify cannot be given any weight with respect to his guilt or innocence.
Justice Monahan’s decision offered a straightforward and helpful definition of “reasonable doubt:”
“A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in this trial. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense, one that arises logically from the evidence or lack of evidence. . . . I also recognize that
proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof to an absolute certainty. But [it] falls much closer to absolute certainty than to probable guilt.”
In his discussion about assessing the wife’s credibility, Justice Monahan noted that such assessments cannot be based on stereotypes, emotional evaluations or demeanor of the witness. He then points out the particular importance of avoiding myths and stereotypes when assessing the credibility of sexual assault survivors:
“It is now widely understood that it is an error of law to assess a sexual assault complainant’s credibility based on assumptions about how a victim of sexual assault is expected or supposed to react to the assault.”
Also of interest in terms of the challenges many women face when they are involved in both family and criminal law proceedings, the trial judge discussed some minor inconsistencies in the wife’s evidence and found, in each context, that they were inconsequential. He also found that the fact that she referred to her family court application a number of times while giving a statement to the police did not mean her memory of what had happened was not independent:
“I find the complainant’s evidence to be detailed, clear and consistent . . . .[A]t trial, the complainant testified without the assistance of the Family Court Application or any other notes and clearly appeared to have an independent recollection of the relevant events. . . . Nor do I find that the complainant had a motive to lie, namely, to advance her claims in the family law litigation. . . . If that alone were sufficient grounds to support a finding that a complainant in a sexual assault case had a motive to lie, it would constitute a significant barrier to the reporting of sexual assaults by complainants who had been married to the alleged abuser.”
In its unanimous decision to uphold the trial decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote:
“The mere existence of an outstanding family law claim does not, on its own, provide evidence of motive to lie. While it may be a feature in the ultimate determination, standing alone as it was here, it is not. “
