The accused brought a Stage 2 third‑party records application seeking production of counselling records of two complainants following a Stage 1 finding of likely relevance under the O’Connor framework.
After reviewing the records, the court conducted the balancing analysis between the accused’s right to make full answer and defence and the privacy interests of the complainants.
The court found no indication that the counselling process revived, refreshed, or shaped the complainants’ memories of the alleged abuse.
As the records disclosed no basis to support the defence theory arising from the preliminary hearing testimony, production was refused.
The counselling records were not ordered produced to the accused.
