View source for Appeal of an Error of Law

[[Fr:Appel_d%27une_erreur_de_droit]]
{{Currency2|July|2021}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderAppeals}}

==General Principles==
{{seealso|Standard of Appellate Review}}
Under [{{CCCSec|675}} s.675(1)(a)(ii)] and 686(1)(a)(ii), the ''defence'' may appeal a conviction on error of law. Under s. 676(1)(a), the ''Crown'' may appeal an aquittal on an error of law.

Where there has been an error of law, such as the improper admission evidence, and the evidence may have influenced the trier of fact in reaching its verdict, the conviction must be quashed, irrespective of whether the admissible evidence supports a conviction.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Colpits v The Queen|1nlks|1965 CanLII 2 (SCC)|[1965] SCR 739}}{{Plurality}}</ref>

However, the Court may dismiss an appeal and deny any remedy under s. 686(1)(a)(ii), where the court "is of the opinion that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred"(s.686(1)(b)(iii)). 

; Proper Analysis of Judge's Reasons
The reason for a trial judge should be not be "read or analyzed as if they were an instruction to a jury."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Villaroman|gsq3b|2016 SCC 33 (CanLII)|[2016] 1 SCR 1000}}{{perSCC| Cromwell J}}{{atL|gsq3b|15}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Morrissey|6jtj|1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA)|22 OR (3d) 514}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atp|525}}<br>
</ref>
The reasons should be "read as a whole, in the context of the evidence, the issues and the arguments at trial, together with 'an appreciation of the purposes or functions for which they are delivered."<ref>
{{ibid1|Villaroman}}{{atL|gsq3b|15}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Laboucan|29283|2010 SCC 12 (CanLII)|[2010] 1 SCR 397}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atL|29283|16}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|REM|20xm6|2008 SCC 51 (CanLII)|[2008] 3 SCR 3}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}{{atL|20xm6|16}}<br>
see also {{CanLIIRP|CLY|1vh6x|2008 SCC 2 (CanLII)|[2008] 1 SCR 5}}{{perSCC-H|Abella J}}{{atL|1vh6x|11}}<br>
</ref>

; Crown Appeal of Factual Determinations
A crown can appeal factual determinations as errors of law in the following circumstances:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|JMH|fnbb2|2011 SCC 45 (CanLII)|[2011] 3 SCR 197}}{{perSCC|Cromwell J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Percy|j56b3|2020 NSCA 11 (CanLII)}}{{perNSCA|Beveridge JA}}{{AtL|j56b3|37}}
</ref>
* trial judge found facts in the absence of evidence; 
* trial judge erred with respect to the legal effect of the facts; 
* trial judge assessed evidence based on a wrong legal principle; or, 
* trial judge failed to consider all of the relevant evidence.

; Dismissal of Crown Appeal With Error of Law
In Crown appeals, reversible errors of law require the appellant to establish not only an error but that "the error (or errors) of the trial judge might reasonably be thought, in the concrete reality of the case at hand, to have had a material bearing on the acquittal". But does not need to go so far as to convince the court that "the verdict would necessarily have been different" <ref>
see {{CanLIIRP|Graveline|1n3bs|2006 SCC 16 (CanLII)|[2006] 1 SCR 609}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}}{{atL|1n3bs|14}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Duguay|1st48|2007 NBCA 65 (CanLII)|50 CR (6th) 378}}{{perNBCA| Deschênes JA}}{{atsL|1st48|26| to 27}}<br>
</ref>

This is similar to the [[Appellate Powers to Dismiss Appeal|curative proviso]] (686(1)(b)(iii)) on an accused appeal, except that the burden remains on the Crown throughout.

; Distinguished from Question of Mixed Fact and Law or Question of Fact
see [[Standard of Appellate Review]]

{{reflist|2}}

==Matters Appealed as Questions of Law==

A Crown appeal of an acquittal, errors in law include:<ref>
see {{CanLIIRP|JMH|fnbb2|2011 SCC 45 (CanLII)|[2011] 3 SCR 197}}{{perSCC|Cromwell J}}{{atsL|fnbb2|24| to 32}}</ref>
#making a finding of fact for which there was no evidence;
#where the legal effect of findings of fact or undisputed fact raises a question of law;
#an assessment of the evidence based on a wrong legal principle; and
#a failure to consider all of the evidence in relation to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence.

The following have been found to be questions of law and so reviewable on the standard of correctness:
* an assessment of the evidence using the wrong legal principle<ref>
{{ibid1|JMH}}{{atsL|fnbb2|24| to 32}}</ref>
* failure to consider all evidence in relation to the issue of guilt<ref>
{{ibid1|JMH}}{{atsL|fnbb2|24| to 32}}</ref> 
* Failure to consider admitted evidence;<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Mohan|1frt1|1994 CanLII 80 (SCC)|[1994] 2 SCR 9}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}} at 20</ref>
* the interpretation of a "legal standard" <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Araujo|5231|2000 SCC 65 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 992}}{{perSCC-H|Lebel J}}{{atL|5231|18}}<br>
</ref> or "misconceiv[ing] a legal test"<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Roebuck|k4cxq|2024 ABCA 143 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|k4cxq|19}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Flagler|jtb28|2022 ABCA 396 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|jtb28|26}}
</ref>
* interpretation of statute<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Fedossenko|gdqg3|2014 ABCA 314 (CanLII)|584 AR 90}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1){{AtL|gdqg3|2}}
</ref>
* the reasonableness of grounds, such as in forming grounds of detention<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Moore|ftrqs|2012 BCCA 400 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Saunders JA}}
</ref>
* a judge adds or deducts a requirement to a controlling legal test.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRPC|Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v Southam Inc|1fr34|1997 CanLII 385 (SCC)|[1997] 1 SCR 748}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci J}}{{atL|1fr34|39}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Hillgardener|28zrk|2010 ABCA 80 (CanLII)|252 CCC (3d) 486}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|28zrk|19}}<br>
</ref>
* whether the trial judge failed to deal with the substance of a critical issue<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|REM|20xm6|2008 SCC 51 (CanLII)|[2008] 3 SCR 3}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}{{atL|20xm6|57}}<br>
</ref>
* the weighing and assessing of one or more items of evidence on the basis of an erroneous legal principle<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|AA|gkd9q|2015 ONCA 558 (CanLII)|327 CCC (3d) 377}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|gkd9q|65}}<br>
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Different Level of Scrutiny==
It is an error of law to apply a different level of scrutiny (sometimes called "uneven scrutiny") upon defence evidence than crown evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Phan|g2g25|2013 ONCA 787 (CanLII)|313 OAC 352}}{{perONCA|Epstein JA}}{{atsL|g2g25|29| to 35}}<br>
</ref>
There is no deference applied in the same way as that of credibility determinations.<ref>
{{ibid1|Phan}}{{atL|g2g25|31}}<br>
</ref> 
Some Courts have recognized this as a "back door" to re-evaluate credibility and so it should be a "difficult argument" to make.<ref>
{{ibid1|Phan}}
{{CanLIIRP|Aird|fzgd4|2013 ONCA 447 (CanLII)|307 OAC 183}}{{perONCA|Laskin JA}}{{atL|fzgd4|39}}<br>

</ref>

The legal threshold for proving different level of scrutiny is considered "very high" and "difficult to make successfully."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cloutier|fm39m|2011 ONCA 484 (CanLII)|272 CCC (3d) 291}}{{perONCA|Weiler JA}}{{atsL|fm39m|86|}}, {{AtsL-np|fm39m|93| to 94}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Jones|fx3q0|2013 ONCA 245 (CanLII)|OJ No 1786}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|fx3q0|8}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Schell|fvhsp|2013 ABCA 4 (CanLII)|542 AR 1}}{{TheCourt}}{{atsL|fvhsp|34-35}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Da Costa|g34s5|2014 ONSC 1000 (CanLII)|OJ No 704}}{{perONSC|Campbell J}}{{atL|g34s5|9}}<br>
</ref>

The appellant cannot "simply ... show that a different trial judge might have made a different assessment of credibility, or that the trial judge failed to make some comment that might have been made in assessing the credibility of the complainant and/or the accused ... the appellant must be able to point to something in the reasons for judgment of the trial judge, or potentially elsewhere in the trial record, that ... make it clear that the trial judge had applied different standards in assessing the evidence of the appellant and the complainant."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Howe|1jkc6|2005 CanLII 253 (ON CA)|192 CCC (3d) 480}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|1jkc6|59}}<br>
{{ibid1|De Costa}}{{atL|g34s5|9}}<br>
</ref>

An uneven scrutiny argument cannot be used as a "veiled invitation to reassess the trial judge’s credibility assessment."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Aird|fzgd4|2013 ONCA 447 (CanLII)|307 OAC 183}}{{perONCA-H|Laskin JA}}{{AtL|fzgd4|39}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRx|SP|jfkp4|2021 ONCA 233 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|jfkp4|27}}
{{CanLIIRx|CGH|jb2qc|2020 ABCA 362 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|jb2qc|24}}<Br>
{{canLIIRx|Ahmad|jgsqm|2021 ABQB 518 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Richardson J}}{{atL|jgsqm|69}} ("Claims of uneven scrutiny are frequently made and can be used to camouflage a complaint that is nothing more than a blatant attack on the trial judge’s credibility findings:")
</ref>

It is not enough that a different judge would have made a different assessment or that he did not "say something" regarding a certain aspect of his assessment, or that he failed to spell out the legal principles.<ref>
{{supra1|Howe}}{{atsL|1jkc6|58| to 59}}<br>
</ref>

The appellant must "must point to something in the reasons of the trial judge or perhaps elsewhere in the record that make it clear that the trial judge had applied different standards in assessing the evidence of the appellant and the complainant."<ref>
{{ibid1|Howe}}{{atL|1jkc6|59}}
</ref>

The appellant must meet a threashold of showing "something sufficiently significant" in the reasons or record that established faulty methodology in deciding credibility.<ref>
{{supra1|Ahmad}}{{atL|jgsqm|71}} ("Appellant must meet the threshold of demonstrating “something sufficiently significant” in the reasons or the record establishing that a trial judge employed faulty methodology in deciding credibility: ")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Quartey|hpv4j|2018 ABCA 12 (CanLII)|43 CR (7th) 359}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1){{atL||42}}, aff’d {{CanLII|hwnws|2018 SCC 59 (CanLII)}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|CJG|hrcgz|2018 ABCA 130 (CanLII)|AJ no 418}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|hrcgz|6}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Wanihadie|j2zpd|2019 ABCA 402 (CanLII)|99 Alta LR (6th) 56}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{AtL|j2zpd|36}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Strathdee|j9hc5|2020 ABCA 306 (CanLII)|AJ No 913}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|j9hc5|9}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Mavros|jc089|2020 ABCA 436 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{AtL|jc089|44}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Curative Proviso==
Despite any finding of an error of law under s. 686(1)(a)(ii), the court may still dismiss the appeal under the [[Remedies_on_Conviction_Appeal#Curative_Proviso_.28686.281.29.28b.29.28iii.29.29|curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii)]].

==See Also==
* [[Standard of Appellate Review]]