In R v TJF 2024 SCC 38, the Supreme Court of Canada set aside an acquittal and ordered a retrial due to an error in law.
The complainant was in a common law relationship with the accused from 2004 to 2012.
The complainant alleged that the accused used violence and threats to persuade her into offering sexual services for money, and that the accused received all of the money gained from these services. The accused was charged with trafficking in persons and receiving a material benefit from it, pursuant to sections 279.01(1) and 279.02(1) of the Criminal Code.
At trial, five witnesses and the complainant provided evidence of the accused’s violence towards the complainant. The trial judge acquitted the accused because he found the complainant’s testimony lacking in credibility and had a reasonable doubt about the accused’s connection to any prostitution enterprise. The witness evidence was not considered in relation to the alleged offences but went to “past discreditable conduct.” Evidence of past discreditable conduct is not normally admissible as it relates to past misconduct of the accused that goes beyond what is alleged by the prosecution in relation to the offence.
The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge should have considered the evidence presented by the witnesses about the accused’s violence towards the complainant. The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal and held that while the trial judge incorrectly concluded the accused’s violence was past discreditable conduct, the error did not have a significant impact on the acquittal.
The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed, setting aside the acquittal and ordering a new trial. Evidence of threats of violence, regular violence, and a violent relationship may have been relevant to prove the elements of the offence of trafficking in persons. Writing for the majority, Justice O’Bonsawin held that the error in law has a material bearing on the acquittal and diminished the evidentiary foundation, which was relevant to proving the essential elements of the offences.
This decision highlights the significant impact that an error in law can have on the interpretation of legislation, and the outcome of a decision. Read the court’s full reasoning in R v TJF 2024 SCC 38 here.
