WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.5(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code. These subsections and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.5(1) or (2), read as follows:
486.5 ORDER RESTRICTING PUBLICATION — VICTIMS AND WITNESSES — (1) Unless an order is made under section 486.4, on application of the prosecutor in respect of a victim or a witness, or on application of a victim or a witness, a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.
(2) JUSTICE SYSTEM PARTICIPANTS — On application of the prosecutor in respect of a justice system participant who is involved in proceedings in respect of an offence referred to in subsection (2.1), or on application of such a justice system participant, a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the justice system participant shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.
(2.1) OFFENCES – The offences for the purposes of subsection (2) are
(a) an offence under section 423.1, 467.11, 467.111, 467.12, or 467.13, or a serious offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization;
(b) a terrorism offence;
(c) an offence under subsection 16(1) or (2), 17(1), 19(1), 20(1) or 22(1) of the Security of Information Act; or
(d) an offence under subsection 21(1) or section 23 of the Security of Information Act that is committed in relation to an offence referred to in paragraph (c).
(3) LIMITATION – An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice if it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Court File and Parties
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
A.K.
Before: Justice P.T. O’Marra
Heard on: March 23, 2026
Oral Ruling on Crown Application under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code
Counsel: Yumi Nagai, counsel for the Applicant Crown Mandeep Saggi, counsel for the Respondent Defendant
Reasons for Decision
Introduction
1The Crown applies under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant, N.G., to testify from outside the courtroom by closed-circuit television. The charges arise from alleged intimate partner violence over the course of the parties’ marriage, including two identified incidents with underlying counts of assault and assault with a weapon. The Crown submits that the order will facilitate a full and candid account. The defence opposes.
Affidavit Evidence
2The application is supported by affidavit material describing a prolonged pattern of physical and coercive abuse during the marriage, ongoing fear of the accused, and significant anxiety responses associated with giving evidence in the accused’s presence. The material asserts that testifying in view of the accused would impede the witness’s ability to speak freely and completely, and that testifying remotely by CCTV would alleviate those impediments and improve candour without impairing cross‑examination or the ability to observe demeanour.
Positions of the Parties
3The Crown submits that the statutory threshold is met because the witness’s ongoing fear and anxiety create a real risk of witness shutdown if required to testify in the accused’s line of sight. The Crown relies on the 2015 amendments to the Criminal Code that lowered the threshold from “necessary” to “facilitate,” and cites authorities confirming that adult witnesses may be accommodated where the order would assist the giving of a full and candid account or is otherwise in the interests of the administration of justice.
4The defence argues that the allegations are dated, there has been a gap in time, and this is the third scheduled trial date. It submits that the fears are unfounded, and the application could have been