Background
DM Stump was convicted for sexual interference under section151 of the Criminal Code. The case arose from events on January 25,2020, involving an 8-year-old complainant who had gone for an overnight visit with her mother to a residence where Stump was staying (para 2).
According to the complainant, around 5:00 a.m., Stump invited her to join him on a couch and proceeded to rub her vagina over her underwear while also touching his own genitals—actions the trial judge interpreted as masturbation (para 3). The complainant later disclosed the incident to her mother and gave a videotaped statement to police that evening(paras 3–4).
In the statement, the complainant initially claimed that the accused had touched her “every single hour” and that AD had seen one of the incidents and told her to “run.” However, under questioning, she admitted to confusion and acknowledged that some of her claims might have been imagined or dreamlike (paras 5–6). At trial, she conceded that she had “lied” to the detective about multiple assaults and AD witnessing one (para 7).
The Trial Justice held that these statements were understandable in light of her age and the difficulty of court proceedings, and convicted Stump.
Outcome
The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered anew trial, finding that the trial judge had misapprehended material evidence and failed to sufficiently address significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony (paras 14–15).
The trial judge accepted the complainant’s core account and found her credible despite inconsistencies about the number of assaults and AD allegedly witnessing at least one incident. He had improperly attributed the inconsistencies to confusion, reasoning that the complainant was a child subjected to a challenging courtroom environment (paras 9–10).
However, we argued – and the Court of Appeal accepted – that the complainant’s contradictory statements occurred during the police interview—prior to any court-related pressures—and thus could not be explained by courtroom confusion (para 15).
The Court agreed with our argument that this was a material inconsistency that went to the heart of the complainant’s credibility and reliability. The trial judge’s explanation failed to rationally address why the complainant fabricated or retracted parts of her statement at a critical early stage (paras 13–15). While appellate courts must read trial reasons contextually and afford deference, this misapprehension was significant and rendered the conviction unsafe (paras 16–17).
Key Takeaways
- Material Inconsistencies Must Be Logically Addressed
The Court reaffirmed that trial judges must provide rational and fact-based reasons when dismissing significant testimonial inconsistencies, especially in child witness cases. Confusion in a courtroom cannot justify contradictory police statements made before any such pressures existed (para 15) - Deference Has Limits
While appellate courts defer to trial judges on credibility findings, this deference does not extend to material reasoning errors or misapprehensions of evidence. Mischaracterizing the origin of inconsistencies can undermine the fairness of the verdict (paras 14–17). - Child Witness Testimony Still Requires Scrutiny
Though courts are sensitive to the challenges of testifying as a child, credibility assessments must still critically evaluate contradictory statements and explain how they are resolved (para - Appellate Review Standards Clarified
The Court applied the framework from R v GF, 2021 SCC 20, stressing that appellate review requires reasons that “explain what the trial judge decided and why” without overlooking material errors (para 16).
Conclusion
R v Stump demonstrates the importance of carefully assessing and addressing inconsistencies in a complainant’s testimony, particularly where those inconsistencies arise early and relate to key aspects of the allegation. The Alberta Court of Appeal accepted our argument that the trial judge's misapprehension of the complainant’s police statement warranted a new trial to ensure fairness and reliability in the verdict