L. Gross

The accused were jointly charged with multiple sexual offences and assault against a child.

Prior to trial, the accused brought an application to exclude testimony from a neighbour who overheard a statement suggesting the child was being "pimped out to pedophiles".

The defence argued the statement was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, relying on jurisprudence excluding speculative overheard utterances where probative value is minimal.

The court distinguished those authorities, finding the statement had contextual value as narrative evidence explaining the police investigation and supporting the Crown’s allegation of a sexualized environment surrounding the child.

The probative value was not outweighed by prejudice.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.2(1) of the Criminal Code seeking an order that a child complainant testify from a room outside the courtroom via closed‑circuit television with only a support person present.

The accused consented to testimony by closed‑circuit television but argued that counsel should be physically present in the room and that cross‑examination occur face‑to‑face with the child.

The court held that the positioning of participants during testimony is within the trial judge’s discretion and must promote the truth‑seeking function of the trial while ensuring fairness.

Relying on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence recognizing the need to protect child complainants from intimidation and trauma, the court concluded that placing multiple lawyers in close proximity to the child would risk undermining the reliability and completeness of the child’s evidence.

The Crown’s application was therefore granted and the child was permitted to testify from a separate room accompanied only by a support person.