Two consolidated appeals challenging the constitutionality of ss. 278.92 to 278.94 of the Criminal Code (the 'record screening regime'), enacted by Bill C-51 in 2018.
The regime governs the admissibility of complainants' private records in the possession or control of the accused in sexual offence proceedings, and extends complainant participatory rights to admissibility hearings.
The majority held that the provisions do not infringe ss. 7, 11(c), or 11(d) of the Charter, finding that the admissibility threshold is rationally connected to Parliament's objective of protecting complainants' privacy and dignity, the Stage One application process is not overbroad, advance disclosure does not violate the right to silence or the privilege against self-incrimination, and complainant participation does not undermine trial fairness or prosecutorial independence.
Both Crown appeals were allowed, the cross-appeal by one accused was dismissed, and the complainant's appeal was allowed with costs.
Three judges dissented in part, concluding the record screening regime — though not the s. 276 regime — is unconstitutional.
