ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
TERAY REAVES
Before Justice Hafeez S. Amarshi
Remote Testimony Ruling
Heard on May 7, 2026
Written reasons released on May 11, 2026
M. Sengupta-Murray............................................................................... counsel for the Crown
Y. Johri................................................................................................ counsel for Teray Reaves
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. Any information that could identify the victim or a witness in this matter shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. Failure to comply with this order is an offence under section 486.6 of the Criminal Code.
Reasons for Ruling
A. Introduction
The Crown applies under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant, B.M. to give her evidence at trial remotely from her home in Halifax. The trial is scheduled for three days commencing on May 26, 2026. Mr. Reaves opposes the application.
In support of the application the Crown filed the affidavit of Detective Sergeant James Thompson, the officer in charge (OIC) of this case. At the application hearing, the officer was cross-examined on the affidavit. Given the limited time available to hear the application in court, I directed the parties to file written submissions.
For the reasons that follow, the application is granted, on the conditions set out at the end of these reasons.
B. Relevant Evidence
B.M. lives in Halifax and has no ties to Ontario. The alleged sexual assault occurred in Toronto on July 20, 2023. She is the central witness for the Crown.
Det. Sgt. Thompson first met with B.M. and the Crown by Zoom on April 8, 2025. According to the assigned Crown there was some discussion about the possibility of a remote hearing at that meeting. The request was initiated by the complainant.
The next communication is by e-mail when the OIC notified the complainant of the May 2026 trial dates by email on July 7, 2025. The email mentioned the possibility of a remote-testimony application but made no commitment.
There was no further communication between Officer Thompson and B.M. about the mode of her testimony until May 6, 2026, the day before this hearing. The officer spoke with her for the purposes of preparing an affidavit in support of the remote testimony application.
The contents of the affidavit establish that B.M. is able to testify by Zoom from a private room in her home; she has a suitable device and a suitable internet connection. That travel to Toronto would require multiple days off work and she would travel alone, without a support network. Further, her emotional well-being remains vulnerable, and the stress of the trial has affected her sleep and eating. Further, she is afraid that being in the same room as Mr. Reaves would impact her ability to give her evidence.
During cross-examination, the officer conceded the limits of his information. He does not know who else, if anyone, lives in B.M.’s residence. He does not know what device she will use, nor did he test her current internet connection, although the parties have spoken over Zoom on a prior occasion.
There is no medical documentation to supplement the affidavit to establish her emotional well-being has been impacted by the trial process. Although I accept that for any witness, especially given the nature of these allegations, there is likely to be stress and some measure of anxiety about testifying.
Det. Sgt. Thompson’s estimate of the cost of return air fare from Halifax to Toronto is around $900, based on a recent Expedia search. No estimate was provided for accommodation, ground transportation and costs for meals.
Ms. Johri points out that the accused, previously a resident of Edmonton, and now living in British Columbia has travelled to Toronto for the prior stages of this proceeding and intends to attend trial in person.
C. Section 714.1
Section 714.1 of the Criminal Code provides that a court may order that a witness in Canada give evidence by videoconference if the court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate having regard to all the circumstances, including: the location and personal circumstances of the witness; the costs that would be incurred if the witness were to appear in person; the nature of the witness’ anticipated evidence; the suitability of the location from where the witness will give evidence; the accused’s right to a fair and public hearing; the nature and seriousness of the offence; and any potential prejudice to the parties caused by the fact that the witness would not be seen by them, if the court were to order the evidence to be given by audioconference.
Section 715.21 of the Criminal Code establishes that witnesses shall testify in person. Section 714.1 is a remedial provision that creates an exception. The test is one of appropriateness in all the circumstances.
In R. v. S.D.L., 2017 NSCA 58, a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision, the court held at para. 32 that a court should authorize testimony under s. 714.1 only “in the face of exceptional circumstances” where credibility is the primary issue, and that the standard ought to be still higher where the credibility of a complainant is at stake.
However, in R. v. Metcalfe, 2018 ONSC 4925, Justice Faita concluded that the standard was too restrictive. She observed at paragraph 12 had Parliament intended s. 714.1 to apply only in exceptional circumstances, it would have said so. There is no presumption against the application of s. 714.1 in cases where credibility is the central issue, or where the remote evidence would be that of the complainant. The nature of the evidence is one of several factors to be considered.1
The application of s. 714.1 should be informed by the principle expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Levogiannis, 1993 47 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475, that the evidence of a witness in a criminal proceeding must be given in a way that is most favourable to eliciting the truth so long as it does not impair the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.2
It has been my experience, especially during the COVID pandemic, that remote testimony does not detract from the truth-seeking exercise where the solemnity of the proceedings can be maintained, the testimony takes place in a private location free of interruption, and the basic technical requirements are satisfied.
Remote testimony allows for the participation of witnesses who would otherwise face obstacles to accessing justice, provided the technology permits a clear view of the witness, including her demeanour, and permits effective cross-examination.3
I note, however, the framework’s permissiveness does not dispense with the need for an adequate evidentiary record as they relate to the s. 714.1 factors. In this case the evidentiary record is barely sufficient, lacking particulars, especially related to costs and the complainant’s employment commitments, that would assist in evaluating the merits of the Crown’s remote testimony application. Of further concern is the lateness of this application, approximately two weeks before trial. There has been a lack of diligence.
D. Analysis
Despite my misgivings about the evidentiary record before me, I am satisfied, albeit modestly, that this an appropriate circumstance for the application of s. 714.1. B.M. lives in another province and has no Ontario ties. She was visiting Toronto at time of the alleged offence. Travel to Toronto would require multiple days off work, taken alone without a support network. I accept that the trial process has had an impact on her emotional well-being as is outlined in the affidavit.
I attached limited weight to B.M.’s assertion that she feared being in the same room as Mr. Reaves. As Ms. Johri properly observed, that concern can be addressed under the testimonial aids’ provisions of the Criminal Code.
Cost is a relevant factor.4 Public resources are not unlimited, and it is a legitimate consideration in the assessment of the s. 714.1 application. It weighs modestly in favour of the order.
B.M. is the central witness for the Crown and her credibility will be the principal issue at trial. It calls for caution in developing safeguards for her testimony. Her status as the complainant does not, however, require a higher threshold for the application of s. 714.1.
I am satisfied that with the appropriate conditions in place, B.M.’s evidence will not be materially impacted by remote testimony. That the accused’s right to a fair hearing is not impaired.
E. Disposition and Conditions
- The Crown’s application is granted. B.M. is permitted to give her evidence remotely from her residence in Halifax, based on the following conditions:
Private room
- B.M. shall give her evidence from a private room in her residence. She is to confirm under oath or affirmation that she is alone in the room and at the request of either counsel or the court, slowly pan the camera to show the entirety of the room.
No materials
- The complainant shall not have with her nor have access during her evidence to any materials, notes, statements or transcripts except for materials provided to her or shown to her by the court or counsel during her evidence. She is to confirm at the outset of her evidence that no such materials are open or accessible on the device she is using.
Breaks
- During any break in her evidence, B.M. will be treated as an excluded witness. She shall not discuss her evidence with anyone, nor is she to have access to any materials relating to the case during any break.
Technology test and method for sharing documents
- The Crown shall arrange and conduct a technology test with the complainant in advance of trial. The test is to confirm a stable Zoom connection of sufficient audio and video quality for courtroom testimony. The Crown at the outset of the trial shall propose a method for transmitting documents to B.M. during her evidence. If the test discloses technical concerns the matter is to be brought back before me prior to the commencement of trial.
Solemnity
B.M. shall be advised, before her evidence begins, that although she is appearing by video, the seriousness of the proceedings, the significance of her oath or affirmation, and her obligations as a witness are the same as if she were to appear in person.
This order may be revisited if any of the conditions outlined are breached, or if technical challenges arise. Where appropriate, the trial may be adjourned to permit the complainant to attend in person.
H.S. Amarshi J.
Footnotes
- This approach has been followed in R. v. K.Z., 2021 ONCJ 321, R. v. JLK, 2023 BCCA 87, and R. v. DMS, 2025 MBCA 16.
- See discussion in R. v. Rutaihwa, 2020 ONCJ 470.
- See discussion in R. v. Pogachar, 2022 ONSC 6675.
- R. v. Russell, 2025 ONCJ 377, at paras. 41–42.