D. R. S.

Case Summary

In 1995, D. R. S. was convicted of sexual assault and related offences against his partner’s nine-year-old son. (D. R. S., his partner, and her son cannot be identified due to a court-ordered publication ban.)1 The boy had testified at trial that D. R. S. had assaulted him, although his evidence “consisted of accusations punctuated by retractions,” whereas D. R. S. testified that these alleged events never happened.2 D. R. S. was sentenced to eight years in prison.3 He appealed his conviction to the Alberta Court of Appeal, but in 1996, the appeal was dismissed.4

However, in 2000, the boy recanted his allegations. It emerged that his parents had been in a custody battle at the time of the alleged assaults. After moving out of his father’s residence to resume living with his mother (no longer D. R. S.’ partner), the boy stated that he had accused D. R. S. of sexual assault under duress from his father, who had threatened him with a knife.5

In 2001, D. R. S. applied to the Minister of Justice under Section 696.1 of the Criminal Code for ministerial review of his conviction.6 Upon completing the case review, the Minister requested that the Alberta Court of Appeal determine whether or not the boy’s recantation would be admissible as fresh evidence, and reopen D. R. S.’ appeal if so.7

In response, the Court of Appeal appointed a Special Commissioner who “heard from several witnesses, including the complainant, who maintained that the accusations were false and were only made because of his father’s threats. His father testified and denied any threats or involvement in the making of the accusations.”8 The Special Commissioner concluded that although “the full truth of the alleged threats . . . may never be known,” the evidence supported “a reasonable inference that the allegations were false and the recantations were correct.”9 As a result, the Court concluded – as did the Crown – that the fresh evidence should be admitted for the Court to consider.10

On January 21, 2013 – 18 years after D. R. S.’ conviction and 13 years after the boy had recanted – the Court of Appeal acquitted him in light of the fresh evidence.11 In its decision, the Court explained that: “Under our system a criminal trial is to determine whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not the ‘factual innocence’ of the accused. Likewise, it is not open to this Court to make a declaration of innocence.”12 Nevertheless, the Court concluded that given the fresh evidence, it was “more probable than not” that D. R. S. “would be acquitted at a hypothetical new trial.”13 Therefore the Court acquitted D. R. S., rather than ordering a new trial, since he had already “served every minute of the sentence” he had received.14

D. R. S. had to do so because he was denied parole – “[e]ven though the Parole Board was aware that the . . . retractions were then being examined” – as the Board believed that he “presented a risk of offending further.”15 Its rationale was that D. R. S. refused to participate in sex offender programs, lacked “faith or trust in the ‘system,’” and continued to assert his innocence.16


[1] R v D. R. S., 2013 ABCA 18 at paras 1, 4.
[2] Ibid. at paras 4, 16.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid. at para 1.
[5] Ibid. at para 5.
[6] Ibid. at para 1.
[7] Ibid. at para 3.
[8] Ibid. at para 6.
[9] Ibid. at para 7.
[10] Ibid. at paras 8-12.
[11] Ibid. at para 19.
[12] Ibid. at para 15.
[13] Ibid. at para 19.
[14] Ibid. at paras 2, 18.
[15] Ibid. at para 2.
[16] Ibid.

Case Details

  • Full name:

    D. R. S.

  • Gender identity:

    Male

  • Race/ethnicity:

    Unknown

  • Age - at the time of conviction:

    Unknown

  • Charges - specific offences:

    Sexual assault

  • Date of conviction:

    1995

  • Date wrongful conviction was overturned:

    2013-01-21

  • Sentence - total time served:

    08 years, 00 months, 00 days

  • Legal mechanism by which wrongful conviction was overturned:

    696/690 and new appeal with new evidence

  • Status of alleged crime:

    No Crime Occurred

  • Compensation Received?

    No

  • Guilty plea?

    No

  • Cause(s) of wrongful conviction:

    D.R.S. was wrongfully convicted of sexually assaulting his common law partner’s son, who later recanted. The boy said that he made the allegations because his father had threatened him during a custody battle. (The father denied making threats or otherwise playing a role in the allegations.)