On a Crown application in a sexual assault prosecution, the court granted testimonial accommodations permitting the complainant to testify by CCTV and with a support person present.
Applying the post-2015 wording of ss. 486.2 and 486.1 of the Criminal Code, the court held that the relevant threshold is whether the order would facilitate the giving of a full and candid account or otherwise serve the proper administration of justice, not whether exceptional circumstances or necessity were shown.
The court accepted evidence from a treating psychotherapist that the complainant experienced intense anxiety and dissociation when discussing the alleged offences and found those accommodations would reduce distress and make it easier to testify.
The court rejected the submission that credibility assessment or jury fairness would be materially impaired by video testimony.
