Jacob Millns

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, brought a motion under s. 683 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the complainant on proposed fresh evidence.

The fresh evidence consisted of recordings in which the complainant allegedly recanted her trial testimony, and a subsequent police statement in which she resiled from that recantation.

The Crown opposed the motion, arguing it was an abuse of process because the recordings were obtained in breach of a non-communication order.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that cross-examination could assist the appeal panel in assessing the credibility of the recantation.

The cross-examination was ordered to proceed remotely, subject to strict limits on its scope.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault, arguing that his Charter rights under ss. 10(a) and (b) were violated, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the trial judge misapplied the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was adequately informed of the reasons for his arrest and the jeopardy he faced before speaking to duty counsel.

The court also rejected the ineffective assistance claim due to a lack of evidentiary foundation and found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, which were supported by corroborating evidence.