Daviault case On September 30, 1994, Supreme Court of Canada announced a decision, with justices splitting 6-3, in Daviault case. bare facts of case are described in opinion by Justice Sopinka: complainant is a 65-year-old woman who is partially paralysed and thus confined to a wheelchair. She knew [Daviault] through his wife, who was complainant's dressmaker and ran errands for her. complainant testified that at approximately 6:00 p.m. May 30, 1989, at her request, [Daviault] arrived at her home carrying a 40-ounce bottle of brandy. complainant drank part of a glass of brandy and then fell asleep in her wheelchair. When she awoke during night to go to bathroom, [Daviault] appeared, grabbed her chair, wheeled her into bedroom, threw her bed and sexually assaulted her. [Daviault] left apartment at about 4:00 a.m. complainant subsequently discovered that bottle of brandy was empty. trial judge found as a fact that [Daviault] had drunk rest of bottle between 6:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. [Daviault, 72 years old,] was a chronic alcoholic. He testified that he had spent day at a bar where he had consumed 7 or 8 bottles of beer. He recalled having a glass of brandy upon his arrival at complainant's residence but had no recollection of what occurred between then and when he awoke nude in complainant's bed. He denied sexually assaulting her.1 prevailing side in Supreme Court decision ruled that Daviault could not be convicted of sexual assault if on a balance of probabilities he could prove that at time of assault he was in a state of extreme intoxication akin to automatism or insanity. If he could prove that, Court ruled, finding him guilty would contravene principles of fundamental justice required in Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982. case was accordingly sent back to original court for retrial. Eventually charges against Daviault were dismissed. complainant had died in 1993, and original court ruled that Daviault could not receive a fair trial because complainant thus could not be questioned her evidence in a new trial.2 popular furor decision created a substantial and continuing furor, oriented around indignation both at drunkenness apparently serving as a legal excuse (see Figures 1 and 2),3 and more specifically at its apparently excusing rape. Five weeks after decision was announced, Toronto Star reported that judges across Canada admit to being under fire because of perception that Supreme Court of Canada has given drunk men an excuse to rape women. wreaked havoc public view of judges, a British Columbia judge said. Everywhere you go, you get it. You can't go for a coffee or to lunch or a party without being attacked. I'm constantly being confronted by people. Most of judges interviewed anonymously by Star backed Supreme Court decision. But an Alberta judge added, I don't know how you alleviate public concern, because public is already so poisoned by decision. They have jumped it with a vengeance. An Ontario judge felt that the special-interest groups are whipping it up, but they are taking it out of context. It's a fear campaign. If this case had involved a robbery or a simple assault there wouldn't be all this clamour. Another Ontario judge, however, was more critical of decision: The law is more than just logic with blinkers on.4 furor was stoked by reports of a series of decisions where Daviault precedent was invoked by trial-court judges to dismiss charges. In first three cases, this involved a man's violence against a woman. In an Alberta case, accused had been charged with assaulting his wife. In a Prince Edward Island case, a restaurant patron was charged with sexually assaulting a woman patron. …