Holly Loubert

The Toronto Star sought to quash or vary a production order issued under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, requiring it to produce the full videotaped interview of Matthiew Deiaco, parts of which had been published in articles on human trafficking.

The applicant argued the order was a fishing expedition and failed to balance state interests with media freedom.

The court dismissed the application, finding reasonable grounds for the order, noting the published excerpts suggested further inculpatory evidence and discrepancies with Deiaco's police statement, and that the media's constitutional protection does not import additional requirements beyond the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard, especially when information has been made public.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault entered on June 18, 2013.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to subpoena certain witnesses and lead evidence of negative forensic test results, and (2) that the trial judge erred by not providing a W.D.-like instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in either argument and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada from a Court of Appeal decision that set aside the accused's convictions for physical and sexual abuse and ordered a new trial.

The majority held that the appeal raised a question of law, namely whether the trial judge was required to self-instruct on the dangers of convicting based on frail complainant evidence from the distant past.

Agreeing with the dissenting Court of Appeal justice, the majority found no legal error by the trial judge.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions restored, with one justice dissenting on the basis that the dissent below raised only questions of fact or mixed fact and law, and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction.