Respondant, a practsing pediatrician, was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault on 4 female patients, aged 13 to 16 at the relevant time, during medical examinations conducted in his office. His counsel indicated that he intended to call a psychiatrist who would testify that the perpetrator of the alleged offences would be part of a limited and unusual group of individuals and that respondent did not fall within that narrow class because he did not possess the characteristics belonging to that group. The psychiatrist testified in a voir dire that the psychological profile of the perpetrator of the first 3 complaints was likely of a pedophile while the profile of the perpetrator of the 4th complaint that of a sexual psychopath. The psychiatrist intended to testify thatthe respondent did not fit the profiles but the evidence was ruled inadmissible at the conclusion of the voir dire.
Supreme Court of Canada
Respondant was found guilty. Issue of whether which expert evidence should be admissible and which should not, in this case the psychiatrist profile evidence was inadmissible due to the conclusion of the voir dire