On June 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R. v. Berg, 2026 SCC 21, a case that serves as an important reminder of a foundational principle of Canadian criminal law: a person cannot be convicted simply because a judge prefers one witness’s testimony over another. A conviction must always be based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case arose from a sexual assault prosecution in Saskatchewan. The complainant and the accused, Mr. Berg, offered sharply different accounts of what occurred during an encounter in a hotel room. The complainant alleged that she had been sexually assaulted, while Mr. Berg maintained that the sexual activity was entirely consensual.
At trial, the judge accepted the complainant’s evidence and rejected Mr. Berg’s account, ultimately convicting him of sexual assault. Mr. Berg appealed, arguing that the trial judge had failed to adequately address significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, particularly concerning her alcohol and marijuana consumption.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by a majority, although one judge would have ordered a new trial. The dissenting judge expressed concern that the inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence had not been properly analyzed when assessing whether the Crown had met its burden of proof.
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the conviction. However, the Court used the opportunity to provide important guidance regarding how judges should approach conflicting testimony in criminal trials.
Clarifying an Important Legal Misunderstanding
The Court focused particular attention on an earlier Ontario Court of Appeal decision known as R. v. J.J.R.D. (2006), a case frequently cited when judges are confronted with conflicting evidence from witnesses.
The Supreme Court emphasized that J.J.R.D. was primarily concerned with whether a trial judge’s reasons were sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful appellate review. It was not intended to create a shortcut for resolving credibility disputes.
The Court cautioned that if J.J.R.D. is misunderstood or misapplied, it may create the impression that a trial judge can reject an accused person’s testimony simply because the judge accepts the complainant’s evidence. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and the Crown’s obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court reaffirmed that criminal convictions cannot be based merely upon a credibility contest in which one witness “wins” and another “loses.” Even where a complainant is found credible, judges must still examine all of the evidence and determine whether the Crown has discharged its burden of proof.
Why This Matters for Wrongful Conviction Prevention
For those concerned with miscarriages of justice, the Court’s clarification is particularly significant.
Many wrongful convictions have occurred in cases where fact-finders effectively reduced the analysis to a choice between competing narratives. When the focus shifts from whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt to whether one witness appears more believable than another, the risk of wrongful conviction increases substantially.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces three essential safeguards:
- The presumption of innocence remains intact throughout the trial.
- The accused bears no obligation to prove innocence.
- A finding that a complainant is credible does not automatically establish guilt.
These principles are especially important in cases that depend heavily upon testimonial evidence and where little or no independent corroborating evidence exists.
The Court’s Conclusion
Although the Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the trial judge in Mr. Berg’s case had properly considered all of the evidence and had not fallen into the error described above, the Court’s broader message is clear.
Canadian criminal courts must remain vigilant in ensuring that convictions are grounded in evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The legal system cannot permit convictions to rest merely upon choosing one version of events over another.
That principle lies at the heart of a fair criminal justice system and remains one of the strongest protections against wrongful convictions.
As Miscarriage of Justice Canada continues its work on behalf of individuals who may have been wrongly convicted, decisions such as R. v. Berg serve as an important reminder that the burden of proof is not a technicality. It is the cornerstone of justice itself.