The appellant challenged his sexual assault convictions on the basis that provisions permitting child witnesses to testify behind a screen and presuming the testimonial competence of witnesses under 14 infringed ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.
The appeal arose from convictions involving two child complainants who testified under protective measures.
The Court, in a brief oral judgment, adopted the reasons of the court below and dismissed the appeal.
The constitutional challenge failed and the convictions were upheld.
