The accused brought a third party records application seeking cellphone records associated with a number subscribed to by the complainant.
The defence argued the records could confirm or refute alleged post‑incident communication between the complainant and the accused, relevant to credibility and full answer and defence.
Applying the two‑stage framework under ss. 278.3 and 278.5 of the Criminal Code and the jurisprudence in Mills and O’Connor, the court considered likely relevance, privacy interests, and the probative value of the requested records.
The court held that the accused met the threshold of likely relevance, noting the limited but potentially probative timeframe and the relatively lower privacy interest in call‑log records compared to counselling records.
The records were ordered produced to the court for judicial review, with further submissions scheduled on whether disclosure to the defence should follow.
