J. Weppler

During a jury trial for sexual offences, the Crown sought an order permitting the complainant to testify outside the courtroom using a screen or CCTV pursuant to s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code.

The complainant, who had recently turned 18, stated she felt uncomfortable testifying in the presence of the accused and defence counsel and believed remote testimony would allow her to speak more freely.

The court assessed whether the requested accommodation would facilitate a full and candid account while ensuring fairness to the accused and avoiding prejudice before the jury.

The judge concluded the complainant’s fears were not well-founded but determined that use of a screen in the courtroom would balance privacy interests and trial fairness.

The complainant was permitted to testify using a screen, accompanied by jury instructions that the procedure was not indicative of guilt.

Several First Nations accused sought disclosure of 2013 jury rolls in advance of a planned constitutional application alleging underrepresentation of Indigenous jurors in jury pools.

They argued the records were relevant to a forthcoming application under ss. 7, 11(d), and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to a potential s. 11(b) delay claim arising from the litigation of that issue.

The court held that the requested materials were governed by the third‑party disclosure framework from R. v. O'Connor because the records were held by a separate government entity rather than the prosecuting Crown.

Applying the likely relevance threshold, the court concluded the jury rolls could assist in determining whether delays associated with the application should be characterized as institutional delay or delay attributable to the accused.

Disclosure was therefore ordered subject to privacy undertakings.