David Humphrey

The Crown sought to introduce historical text messages sent by the accused to his wife, which were obtained by police pursuant to a valid general warrant.

The accused sought to exclude the messages on the basis of spousal privilege under s. 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act and s. 189(6) of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, holding that spousal privilege is a testimonial privilege that protects a spouse from being compelled to testify, but does not render the communications themselves inadmissible when independently and lawfully obtained by police.

The accused, a physician, was charged with one count of sexual assault against his employee.

The Crown alleged multiple incidents of unwanted touching and attempted kissing in the workplace, set against a backdrop of admitted sexual harassment.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's denials as implausible and inconsistent.

Finding the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated in part by other witnesses, the court concluded that at least one incident of sexual assault—rubbing his groin against her leg—was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

A conviction was entered.