Trauma evidence excluded on appeal

Sensational work by Jolene Hansell in R v PJC, 2025 ONCA 196. The trial judge erred in admitting and relying on the evidence of a trauma expert to evaluate the credibility of the complainants in this historical sexual assault case.

Expect to see trauma expert routinely excluded after this decision. See para 38: "The assessment of the credibility and reliability of witnesses, including those testifying about traumatic events they suffered as children (or as adults), is the daily fare of judges and is grounded in common knowledge and experience. In general, triers of fact do not need to know how the brain functions and encodes memories to assess the probative value of this evidence."

This same ground of appeal was raised in R v Hoggard, 2024 ONCA 613, where the trial judge erred in admitting evidence from the same expert. Hoggard was a jury trial, however. The Court of Appeal in that case dismissed the appeal because though the evidence should not have gone before the jury, there was no realistic risk they misused it. In PJC, the reasons for conviction showed that the trial judge's credibility analysis had been impacted by the language of the expert. New trial ordered.