By Miscarriage of Justice Canada
One of the most fundamental principles of the Canadian justice system is that individuals must be judged on the evidence relating to the offence charged—not on whether a judge, jury, or the public finds them unlikeable, offensive, or morally objectionable.
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice serves as a powerful reminder of that principle.
In R. v. Manigbas, Justice Tamara Sugunasiri overturned a sexual assault conviction after finding that the trial judge improperly relied on the accused’s misogynistic attitudes when assessing his credibility and determining guilt. The decision underscores a recurring concern in wrongful conviction cases: the danger of allowing personal distaste for an accused person to substitute for evidence.
The Allegation
The case arose from an incident in November 2022 involving an apartment building superintendent and a tenant. The complainant alleged that after arriving at her apartment to assist with access to a storage area, the superintendent, Marcial Manigbas, sexually assaulted her by grabbing her body and touching her genitals over her clothing.
Mr. Manigbas denied the allegation. He acknowledged attending the apartment and offering assistance but denied any inappropriate touching.
Following trial, the court accepted the complainant’s evidence and convicted Mr. Manigbas of sexual assault. He was sentenced to a period of house arrest followed by probation.
The Appeal
On appeal, Mr. Manigbas argued that the trial judge improperly relied on his views about women when rejecting his testimony.
The trial judge had commented negatively on statements he made during his evidence, including his assumptions about the complainant’s ability to move or disassemble an air conditioner. The judge described aspects of his testimony as dismissive and insulting and concluded that she rejected his evidence.
Justice Sugunasiri found that these comments created a significant legal problem.
The appeal decision emphasized that Canadian law prohibits courts from determining guilt based on an accused person’s bad character, unpopular opinions, or perceived moral failings. A person may hold offensive views, express sexist attitudes, or behave in a manner others find objectionable. However, those characteristics cannot be used as proof that the person committed a criminal offence.
As the appeal judge explained, even if Mr. Manigbas appeared misogynistic, that fact alone could not justify concluding that he was a sexual offender or that his denial of the allegations was inherently unreliable.
Why This Matters
Cases involving allegations of sexual assault often involve competing accounts of what occurred. In such cases, credibility assessments are central to the outcome.
Because credibility plays such a significant role, courts must be especially careful not to allow stereotypes, assumptions, or moral judgments to influence their analysis.
The law requires judges to determine:
- Whether the Crown has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;
- Whether the evidence is reliable;
- Whether the accused’s testimony raises a reasonable doubt.
The law does not permit courts to conclude that a person is more likely guilty because they hold objectionable beliefs or express unpopular opinions.
When courts cross that line, the result can be a miscarriage of justice.
The Danger of Moral Reasoning
Wrongful convictions frequently arise when decision-makers substitute assumptions for evidence.
History provides numerous examples where individuals were convicted because they appeared strange, socially awkward, mentally ill, poorly educated, or otherwise outside societal norms. In some cases, stereotypes concerning race, class, gender, or personality characteristics have contributed to wrongful convictions.
The concern identified by the Ontario Superior Court in this case reflects the same underlying principle.
A criminal trial is not a referendum on whether an accused person is likeable. It is not an assessment of whether a judge approves of a person’s values or opinions.
The only question is whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
A Reminder of a Fundamental Principle
The appeal court concluded that the trial judge’s reasoning rendered the verdict unsafe and that allowing the conviction to stand would amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Whether one agrees with Mr. Manigbas’ views or finds his comments offensive is ultimately beside the point. The rule of law requires that guilt be determined on evidence, not character judgments.
The decision serves as an important reminder that the protections afforded to unpopular, offensive, or unlikeable individuals are the same protections that safeguard all Canadians.
When courts focus on character rather than evidence, confidence in the justice system is undermined. When courts correct those errors, they reinforce one of the most important principles of criminal law: every person is entitled to a fair trial based solely on the evidence. That principle remains one of the strongest safeguards against wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice in Canada.