Jessica Proskos

The accused, a physiotherapist, was tried on one count of sexual assault arising from allegations that he touched a child complainant's vagina during treatment sessions.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and the governing principles on assessing child-witness evidence, motive to fabricate, prior consistent statements, and reasonable doubt.

The trial judge found a strong motive to fabricate at the time of disclosure and identified material inconsistencies in the complainant's accounts about when the touching began, how often it occurred, and the nature of the contact.

In the context of the evidence as a whole, the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, and an acquittal was entered.

The defendant, Simitkumar Patel, was charged with child luring and child pornography offences following an undercover police operation.

He applied for a stay of proceedings, alleging that his Charter rights were violated during his arrest and subsequent detention.

The court found multiple serious Charter violations, including arbitrary detention, denial of the right to counsel, and a deceptive interrogation that subverted his right to silence.

Furthermore, the court held that the harsh conditions of his detention, which included a public strip search and the denial of vegetarian food for three days, caused him post-traumatic stress disorder and violated his section 7 rights.

To protect the integrity of the justice system from such egregious state misconduct, the court granted the application and ordered a stay of proceedings.

In a criminal case involving sexual assault charges against a physiotherapist, the defence brought a motion for directions regarding Crown disclosure of private records.

The central issue was whether documents disclosed by the Crown required an admissibility hearing under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code, or if Crown disclosure implied a full waiver of privacy interests by the complainant.

The court, Molloy J., affirmed the binding nature of prior Superior Court decisions (R. v. J.K., R. v. Martiuk) which established a presumption that Crown disclosure constitutes a full waiver, negating the need for a s. 278.92 hearing.

However, the judge found that in this specific case, the Crown had failed to obtain proper, informed waivers from the complainants.

This lack of valid waivers constituted "evidence to the contrary" rebutting the presumption.

Consequently, the court ruled that admissibility hearings under s. 278.92 would indeed be required for the disclosed records.