During a jury trial for sexual offences, the 16-year-old complainant was unable to continue her testimony after a recess on the second day of cross-examination.
The Crown applied to continue the trial, while the defendant applied for a directed verdict of acquittal or a mistrial.
Applying the framework from R. v. Hart, the court found that the incomplete cross-examination had little impact on the jury's ability to assess the evidence, as the cross-examination was near completion and the defendant had already explored most areas of impeachment.
The court held that any prejudice could be remedied by allowing defence counsel to present the planned confrontation using prior statements and by providing a specific jury instruction.
The Crown's application was granted and the defendant's application was dismissed.
