Dr. Wolfe

On a summary judgment motion by police defendants in a civil action for negligent investigation, bad faith, and Charter damages arising from withdrawn sexual assault charges, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Applying the summary judgment framework and the reasonable and probable grounds standard, the court found the investigating officer had a sufficient objective and subjective basis to arrest and charge based on the complainant’s allegations and corroborative investigative steps.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on the complainant’s alleged Reactive Attachment Disorder as a basis to negate grounds, emphasizing that such a diagnosis did not eliminate the need to investigate or require corroboration.

The absence of expert evidence from the plaintiffs on the police standard of care was fatal.

Claims against the police defendants, including the request to erase the arrest record, were dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, sexual touching, and uttering death threats against his seven-year-old nephew.

The complainant provided delayed and incremental disclosure of the abuse, culminating in a traumatic seizure-like episode where he spontaneously uttered fears about his uncle.

The court admitted expert evidence on child sexual abuse disclosure patterns and trauma symptoms.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's blanket denial and defence theories of fabrication.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

In a trial for child sexual abuse, both the Crown and the defence brought applications to introduce expert testimony.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence from a clinical psychologist regarding delayed disclosure and the relationship between sexual abuse and non-epileptic seizures.

The defence sought to introduce evidence from a cognitive psychologist on similar topics, as well as the effect of questioning techniques on children.

The court applied the Mohan test and ruled that both experts could testify on delayed disclosure and non-epileptic seizures, as this information was outside the normal experience of the trier of fact.

However, the court excluded the defence expert's proposed testimony on questioning techniques, finding it unnecessary as assessing credibility is within the court's expertise.