SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Gulliver, 2018 SCC 24, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 694 Appeal heard: May 18, 2018 Judgment rendered: May 18, 2018 Docket: 37917 Between: Andrew Donald Gulliver Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Gascon, Brown and Rowe JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 2) Rowe J. (Abella, Moldaver, Gascon and Brown JJ. concurring) R. v. Gulliver, 2018 SCC 24, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 694 Andrew Donald Gulliver Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Gulliver 2018 SCC 24 File No.: 37917. 2018: May 18. Present: Abella, Moldaver, Gascon, Brown and Rowe JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Criminal law — Trial — Judgments — Reasons for judgment — Sufficiency of reasons — Accused convicted of several charges including sexual assault — Court of Appeal holding that trial judge provided adequate explanation of reasoning process — Convictions upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Berger, Wakeling and Martin JJ.A.), 2017 ABCA 223 , [2017] A.J.

No. 1006 (QL), 2017 CarswellAlta 1756 (WL Can.), affirming the convictions of the accused. Appeal dismissed. Peter J. Royal , Q.C. , and David N. B. Sims , for the appellant. Troy Couillard , for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [ 1 ] Rowe J. — We all agree that, read fairly, the trial judge ’ s reasons make clear that the alibi evidence was neither credible nor reliable. We are also of the view that the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient. [ 2 ] Accordingly, we are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed.

Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Royal & Company, Edmonton. Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton.