R v Dinardo

R. v. Dinardo

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 788, 2008 SCC 24
Supreme Court of Canada — Charron J. | May 9, 2008

Background

Jean Dinardo, a taxi driver in Longueuil, Quebec, was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a person with a disability. The complainant, a 22-year-old woman with a mild intellectual disability and Tourette syndrome, alleged that during a 15-minute taxi ride from her group home to a day program, Dinardo touched her breasts, inserted his finger in her vagina, and invited her to touch his penis.

The case had serious credibility issues from the start. During a competency hearing, the complainant gave contradictory answers about whether she understood the importance of telling the truth. At trial, she provided inconsistent testimony on many points and, most troublingly, when asked if she had invented the story, she said "yes" — then explained she invented it "to say he touched me" because she was afraid of him. Four witnesses testified about the complainant's immediate disclosure, but two also confirmed she had a history of lying for attention.

Issues

1. Did the trial judge provide sufficient reasons to allow meaningful appellate review of his credibility findings?
2. Did the trial judge improperly use the complainant's prior consistent statements as corroborative evidence?

The Credibility Crisis

The trial judge found Dinardo guilty despite acknowledging that he "testified well." The judge rejected Dinardo's evidence about the car's configuration making contact impossible, but crucially failed to explain how he resolved the complainant's contradictory testimony about inventing the story. The judge simply stated that she "never contradicted herself on important facts, only on certain details" — but the Supreme Court found this assessment fundamentally wrong.

Justice Charron emphasized that the complainant's testimony "wavered on the central issue at trial: that is, whether Mr. Dinardo committed the acts for which he was charged, or whether the story was invented." The judge was obligated to explain how he reconciled these contradictions, particularly given the complainant's acknowledged tendency to lie and the absence of corroborating evidence.

The Prior Statement Error

The trial judge also committed a legal error by treating the complainant's prior consistent statements (her immediate reports to various staff members) as corroborative evidence. While such statements can provide context for assessing credibility — showing the spontaneous nature of a complaint — they cannot be used to prove the truth of their contents. The judge's reasoning showed he relied "heavily on the corroborative value" of these statements, treating the complainant's consistency as proof her story was more credible.

Key Takeaway

When credibility is the central issue, judges must explain how they resolved significant contradictions in witness testimony — especially when the witness admits to sometimes fabricating stories.

This case reinforces that appellate courts cannot fill in gaps in trial judges' reasoning or conduct their own credibility assessments. Self-represented defendants facing credibility-based charges should carefully document all inconsistencies in complainant testimony and ensure these issues are properly raised at trial.