G. Clark

The defendant, charged with historical sexual offences against his daughter, applied under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of the complainant's previous inconsistent statements regarding the paternity of a miscarried pregnancy.

The Crown concurrently applied under the Kinamore framework to introduce evidence of the complainant's sexual inactivity and bleeding during the alleged first assault.

The court granted the defendant's application, finding the previous statements significantly probative to the charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The court partially granted the Crown's application, admitting evidence of the bleeding and sexual inactivity, but excluding the complainant's lay opinion that the bleeding was caused by a ruptured hymen and evidence of her virginity due to lack of competence and potential prejudice.

The offender, a 32-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty of assaulting his intimate partner with a knife.

The Crown sought a 90-day conditional sentence and probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence and probation.

The court considered the offender's lack of criminal record, steady employment, mental health struggles, and compliance with bail conditions as mitigating factors.

The court declined to order restitution for the victim's treatment costs, finding insufficient evidence that the offence caused the claimed PTSD.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant, charged with historical sexual offences against his daughter, applied under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of a statement the complainant made to a roommate about being sexually abused by a peer.

The defendant argued the statement was relevant to show animus and as a prior inconsistent statement.

The court found the statement had no probative value as a prior inconsistent statement but had significant probative value as evidence of animus towards the defendant, providing a potential motive to fabricate.

The court concluded that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice and allowed the application to cross-examine the complainant on the statement for the limited purpose of demonstrating animus.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(1) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify via CCTV from outside the courtroom.

The complainant, who alleged sexual offences by the accused, suffered from Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and experienced severe anxiety when testifying in the visual presence of the accused.

The court found that the Crown established on a balance of probabilities that the complainant may have difficulty communicating her evidence due to a mental disability.

The application was granted.