Lu Zhao

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a former employee at his meat processing company.

The complainant alleged that the accused approached her from behind on two occasions, smelling her hair, placing his hands on her shoulder and neck, and touching her arms.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's testimony, including contradictory accounts of how she left the office, whether she spoke to her husband, and when she disclosed the incident.

The court also noted that the complainant failed to initially mention observing an erection until after her memory was refreshed by her police statement.

While the accused's testimony contained some implausible elements, the court found it could not reject his denial.

The Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and an acquittal was entered.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, sought authorization under ss. 278.92-278.94 of the Criminal Code to use Human Rights Tribunal documents at trial.

The court ruled that the Human Rights Tribunal application and reply, being public filings, did not constitute "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, and therefore did not require vetting under the s. 278.92 regime.

The defence was permitted to use the redacted Tribunal documents at trial.

The Applicant, charged with sexual assault and other offences, sought a determination on whether electronic communications (text messages and photographs) in his possession constituted "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, thereby requiring a s. 278.92 application for their admissibility at trial.

The court found that, with the exception of specific content deemed "sexual activity" under s. 276(4), the electronic communications did not meet the definition of "record" as the Complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in them, considering the content and the nature of the relationships involved.