3 total
Court excluded counsel from an in camera review of third-party records, ordering specific excerpts disclosed.
This decision addresses an in camera hearing under s. 278.6 of the Criminal Code, following an accused's successful application for production of a complainant's counsellor records.
The court determined which portions of the records should be disclosed to the accused.
It ruled that Crown and defence counsel should be excluded from the in camera hearing, as their participation would be futile without prior access to the records and counter-productive to privacy.
The judge ordered disclosure of relevant excerpts pertaining to the counsellor's role in the complainant's police statements and the identity of the perpetrator, while balancing the complainant's privacy interests.
The court ordered production of a complainant's counselling records for judicial review due to a material inconsistency in her evidence.
The accused, C.F., applied under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code for the production of records from a school counsellor concerning the complainant, K.W., in a sexual offence case.
The accused sought production due to a material inconsistency between the complainant's police statements and her preliminary inquiry testimony regarding an act of cunnilingus.
The court found the records likely relevant and their production necessary in the interests of justice, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy rights.
The court ordered the records produced for judicial review.
The Crown's application to adduce similar fact evidence of workplace misconduct was dismissed.
The Crown sought leave to adduce evidence of discreditable conduct, both from one count to another and extrinsic to the indictment, in a sexual assault case.
The central issue was whether the complainant's consent was vitiated by the accused's breach of his position of authority.
The court applied the similar fact evidence test, requiring a sufficient nexus and probative value outweighing prejudice.
The application was dismissed, as the court found insufficient commonality and nexus between the proposed evidence (from another employee and financial irregularities) and the sexual assault charge, particularly regarding the complainant's stated reason for consent and lack of direct threats.
