Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content





Citation: R. v. Bourgeois, 2017 SCC 49, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 287

Appeal heard: October 13, 2017

Judgment rendered: October 13, 2017

Docket: 37461



Michael Shawn Bourgeois





Her Majesty The Queen






Coram: Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.

Reasons for Judgment:

(para. 1)

Moldaver J. (Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. concurring)







R. v. Bourgeois, 2017 SCC 49, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 287



Michael Shawn Bourgeois                                                                              Appellant


Her Majesty The Queen                                                                              Respondent




Indexed as:  R. v. Bourgeois




2017 SCC 49




File No.:  37461.




2017:  October 13.




Present:  Moldaver, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.




on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta


                    Criminal law — Appeals — Unreasonable verdict — Accused convicted of sexual assault — Court of Appeal finding that appellate intervention not warranted – Verdict not unreasonable — Conviction upheld.


Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 686(1) (a)(i).

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Berger, Martin and Slatter JJ.A.), 2017 ABCA 32, 345 C.C.C. (3d) 439, [2017] 5 W.W.R. 455, 49 Alta. L.R. (6th) 11, [2017] A.J. No. 79 (QL), 2017 CarswellAlta 106 (WL Can.), affirming the conviction of the accused for sexual assault. Appeal dismissed.


                    Jennifer Ruttan and Michael Bates, for the appellant.


                    Brian Graff, for the respondent.


                    The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1]                              Moldaver J. — This appeal comes to us as of right from the Court of Appeal of Alberta. A majority of the court concluded that there was no basis for overturning the appellant’s conviction for sexual assault. Justice Berger, dissenting, held that the verdict was unreasonable pursuant to s. 686(1) (a)(i) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 . We are not persuaded that the trial judge reached his decision by an illogical or irrational reasoning process; nor are we persuaded that his verdict was unreasonable within the meaning of s. 686(1) (a)(i). As a result, we would dismiss the appeal.

                    Judgment accordingly.


                    Solicitors for the appellant: Ruttan Bates, Calgary.


                    Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Alberta, Calgary.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.