During a trial for sexual assault, the complainant testified in cross-examination that she 'recovered' memories of the alleged assault during therapy sessions.
The accused brought a motion for directions to cross-examine the complainant on these recovered memories without making an application under s. 278 of the Criminal Code.
The court held that the accused could ask the complainant what she meant by the terms 'recovered memory' and 'walked back', as this did not elicit the content of the therapeutic records.
However, the court ruled that questions regarding whether the memories were consistent or changed over time would elicit the content of the records and therefore required a s. 278 application.
