Julie O’Connor

The accused was tried on historic sexual offence charges arising from allegations by his daughter concerning a single weekend years earlier.

The court admitted the complainant's videorecorded statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code and assessed her evidence using the principles governing child witnesses.

Although the complainant appeared candid and spontaneous, the court found several confident but materially inconsistent recollections on unrelated details, creating doubt about the overall reliability of her account.

Applying the criminal burden of proof and the framework governing the accused's denial evidence, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted on all counts, with the Crown conceding one count for lack of evidence on an essential element.

The Crown brought pre-trial applications for testimonial aids, admission of video statements, voluntariness of the accused's statement, and admission of electronic communications containing discreditable conduct and other sexual activity.

The accused brought a cross-application under s. 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from a police search of the minor complainant's cell phone.

The court granted the Crown's applications, finding the electronic communications highly probative of identity and motive.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter application, holding that an adult communicating with a child for the purpose of facilitating a sexual offence does not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in those communications on the child's device.