A. Sobcuff

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow two complainants to testify remotely from Sudbury.

The complainants cited childcare responsibilities, mental health issues, addiction recovery, and fear of the accused as reasons for their reluctance to testify in person.

The court balanced the rights of the vulnerable witnesses with the accused's right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.

Finding no prejudice to the accused in a judge-alone trial, the court granted the application, ordering the complainants to testify via video conference from the Sudbury courthouse.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching arising from allegations of repeated sexual abuse of a child during babysitting and family visits.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the complainant's evidence, treated inconsistencies about timing and location as peripheral in light of the complainant's young age at the time of the events, and rejected the accused's and defence witnesses' evidence as illogical and unreliable.

The court further held that a variance between the date range in the Information and the evidence concerning one incident was immaterial under the Criminal Code because time was not an essential element and no prejudice to the defence was shown.

Findings of guilt were entered on all counts.