The accused applied under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code for production of counselling records from a sexual assault centre relating to the complainant.
The prosecution intended to call expert evidence regarding delayed memory recall, and the defence argued that the counselling process may have revived, refreshed, or shaped the complainant’s memories.
The court held that testimony at the preliminary inquiry suggesting counselling played a role in the emergence of additional memories met the threshold of likely relevance.
Given that the case turned largely on the complainant’s credibility and the reliability of recovered memories, judicial review of the records was necessary in the interests of justice to permit full answer and defence.
