The accused brought two pre-trial applications in a historical sexual assault prosecution.
First, he sought production of complainants’ therapeutic and medical records under s. 278 of the Criminal Code.
Second, he sought permission under s. 276 to cross‑examine the complainants regarding prior sexual assaults committed by another individual, arguing it was relevant to testing the reliability of their memories.
The court held the defence failed to demonstrate that the requested third‑party records were likely relevant or necessary in the interests of justice, emphasizing the strong privacy interests in therapeutic records and the prohibition on speculative fishing expeditions.
However, limited cross‑examination regarding the other assaults was permitted solely to test memory and reliability, not to invoke the prohibited “twin myths.”
