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 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection 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 486.4(1), read as follows:

486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences.

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences:

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347,

(ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or

(iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).

(2) Mandatory order on application.

In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.6 Offence.

(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2017-07-25

Court File No.: Sioux Lookout 175034

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— AND —

R.B.

Before: Justice Sarah Cleghorn

Heard: June 8 and 9, 2017

Reasons on Crown's Hearsay Application delivered: July 25, 2017

Counsel:

S. Burden and P. Larsh — counsel for the Crown

M. Van Walleghem — counsel for the defendant R.B.

Decision

Cleghorn J.:

Overview

[1] R.B. is charged with two offences involving T.F.; sexual assault causing bodily harm and assault causing bodily harm. It is alleged that these offences were committed on June 12th, 2016.

[2] The Crown has applied to introduce a number of statements that T.F. made in the aftermath of the alleged offences. These include the following:

• Statements made by T.F. during a 911 call that she placed on the morning of June 12, 2016, when she initially summoned the authorities to her residence.
• A statement that T.F. reportedly made to Constable Maure on the morning of June 12, 2016, after the officer attended in response to the 911 call.
• A statement that T.F. reportedly made to Constable Maure while the two of them were at hospital on the afternoon of June 12th, 2016.
• A statement that T.F. reportedly made to Constable Maure on June 14, 2016, when the officer contacted her to make arrangements for a video-recorded interview.
• A video-recorded statement that T.F. provided to police on June 21, 2016, ten days after the alleged assaults.

[3] The Crown seeks to introduce these various statements for the truth of their contents in order to establish that R.B. both sexually and physically assaulted T.F. and in the process caused her bodily harm.

[4] The Crown readily concedes that the statements are hearsay and presumptively inadmissible. The Crown argues, however, that the various statements are admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule. In other words, the Crown submits that the out of court statements it seeks to proffer are admissible because they are both necessary and reliable.

[5] Necessity is not at issue on this application given that the complainant is deceased. Reliability is the question that divides the parties with respect to the admissibility of the complainant's out of court statements.

[6] In order to assess the threshold reliability of the statements, the trustworthiness of the statements must be carefully considered.

[7] In R. v. Khelawon the Supreme Court of Canada supplied an analytical framework for analyzing whether or not out of court statements are admissible pursuant to the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

[8] It is the Crown that bears the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, the reliability of the out of court statements. In this context, reliability is about ensuring the integrity of the trial process. The evidence, although needed, is not admissible unless it is sufficiently reliable to overcome the dangers arising from the difficulty of testing it.

[9] In deciding the issue of threshold reliability the Supreme Court directed in Khelawon that all relevant factors are to be included in the analysis. Of course this can include the presence of supporting or contradictory evidence.

[10] Late last month, the Supreme Court released its decision in R. v. Bradshaw, which serves to further clarify Khelawon. Bradshaw makes clear that there are two distinct approaches to establishing threshold reliability. The decision is of central importance in this matter, given that it further explains the relevance of corroborative or contradictory evidence when assessing threshold reliability. Given that the decision was rendered after oral submissions were completed on the voir dire in this matter, I invited the parties to provide further written submissions and both sides chose to do so.

[11] In Bradshaw, the Supreme Court explained that threshold reliability could take one of two forms, either "procedural reliability" or "substantive reliability". The Court explains, at paragraph 28 of its judgment, that:

Procedural reliability is established when "there are adequate substitutes for testing the evidence", given that the declarant has not "state[d] the evidence in court, under oath, and under the scrutiny of contemporaneous cross-examination" (Khelawon, at para. 63). These substitutes must provide a satisfactory basis for the trier of fact to rationally evaluate the truth and accuracy of the hearsay statement (Khelawon, at para. 76; Hawkins, at para. 75; Youvarajah, at para. 36). Substitutes for traditional safeguards include a video recording of the statement, the presence of an oath, and a warning about the consequences of lying (B. (K.G.), at pp. 795-96).

[12] And, with respect to substantive reliability, the Court said this, at paragraph 30 of its judgment:

A hearsay statement is also admissible if substantive reliability is established, that is, if the statement is inherently trustworthy (Youvarajah, at para. 30; R. v. Smith, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915, at p. 929). To determine whether the statement is inherently trustworthy, the trial judge can consider the circumstances in which it was made and evidence (if any) that corroborates or conflicts with the statement (Khelawon, at paras. 4, 62 and 94-100; R. v. Blackman, 2008 SCC 37, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 298, at para. 55).

[13] The Court in R. v. Bradshaw set out a 4-part test to be followed, which it summarized at para. 57 of its judgment as follows:

In sum, to determine whether corroborative evidence is of assistance in the substantive reliability inquiry, a trial judge should:

1. Identify the material aspects of the hearsay statement that are tendered for their truth.
2. Identify the specific hearsay dangers raised by those aspects of statement in the particular circumstances of the case.
3. Based on the circumstances and these dangers, consider alternative, even speculative, explanations for the statement.
4. Determine whether, given the circumstances of the case, the corroborative evidence led at the voir dire rules out these alternative explanations such that the only remaining likely explanation for the statement is the declarant's truthfulness about, or the accuracy of, the material aspects of the statement.

[14] I turn from the governing legal principles to the evidence on the voir dire.

a) Overview of the Evidence

[15] The 911-call made on the morning of June 12, 2016 was played in court and filed as an exhibit on the voir dire. The dispatcher, K.M., answered the incoming 911 call at 8:46 a.m. The caller was a woman, who eventually identified herself as T.F. K.M. by questioning T.F., elicited from her that she was calling about an assault perpetrated on her. During the call, T.F. clearly sounds distressed and at one point it sounds as though she is crying.

[16] During the 911-call, T.F. informed the dispatcher that she recently had throat surgery and it was very difficult for her to speak. She was speaking quietly and haltingly, clearly struggling to get the words out. She stated that she needed help at her apartment and provided her address, 191/2 King Street, Sioux Lookout. She was able to tell the dispatcher that she lives alone and that the person who had assaulted her was not her boyfriend. When asked what happened the complainant responded with, "he hit me". Further, she informed the operator that the perpetrator was still there. She explained that she was wearing a white dress, was outside of her apartment building and that the officers would be able to see for themselves what had happened to her once they arrived. She just wanted the police to "hurry".

[17] Just prior to the police arriving, an unknown male voice can be heard in the background of the recording of the 911-call. It would appear that when the police arrived the 911-call was still ongoing and being recorded. A second male voice, subsequently identified as that of Constable Boss, can be heard asking the first male, "who are you?" and the first male is heard responding, "I'm R.B.".

[18] Upon arriving at the residence at 191/2 King Street, Constable Boss observed T.F. sitting on the front steps and talking on the phone. A male person, later identified as the accused, was standing close by. The officer noted that the woman had injuries to her face. When he asked T.F. if the accused was responsible for her injuries she nodded in the affirmative.

[19] Constable Boss further testified that he recognized the accused from prior dealings with him in the small community of Sioux Lookout. He described R.B. as being intoxicated. He observed what looked like blood on the crotch area of R.B.

[20] After R.B. was arrested and during the lodging process a blood like substance was observed on his left hand, fingernails and right palm. Police took samples from these areas and subsequent DNA analysis established that this was T.F.'s blood.

[21] Following R.B.'s arrest, Constable Maure accompanied T.F. back up into her apartment. When they entered the bedroom T.F. fell down onto the floor and began sobbing. She told Constable Maure that she was in pain and reported that R.B. had "fucked her in the ass". She advised the officer that when she tried to call the police R.B. responded by punching her in the face.

[22] Inside the bedroom Constable Maure observed what appeared to be fresh blood on the mattress. She also saw what appeared to be a bloody palm print on the bedroom doorframe. Subsequent DNA analysis confirmed that the blood on the mattress was that of the complainant and R.B. Photographs of both the mattress and the bloody palm print on the doorframe were filed as exhibits on the voir dire. The photograph of the mattress shows what can be fairly described as a significant amount of blood.

[23] The two police officers that attended the scene also observed what appeared to be blood in the bathroom. Photographs of the bathroom sink were also filed as exhibits on the voir dire and show streaks of blood on the outside of the pedestal sink.

[24] Eventually, T.F. was taken by ambulance from her apartment to the hospital. After a doctor examined her in the emergency department, C.W., who is a nurse, was assigned to assist with administering the sexual assault kit. She first had contact with T.F. at around 10:00 a.m. that morning. C.W. recalled that T.F. had a "goose egg" on her head, a bruise on her arm and a nosebleed when she was initially brought into the emergency department. Although T.F. was willing to have the sexual assault kit completed, she was clear that she did not want to talk about what had occurred or sign any of the consent forms. Rather, she reported that she simply wanted to rest before starting the process. C.W. respected that request and provided T.F. with some space, checking in on her periodically throughout the day. Around 2:30 p.m. she noticed that T.F. had left the hospital. C.W. proceeded to let Constable Maure know about this turn of events.

[25] After being notified about her departure from hospital, the police followed up with T.F. She returned to the hospital at around 5:00 p.m. that evening. At that point, the sexual assault kit was partially completed. T.F. did not want to remove her dress during the examination. Similarly, she did not want pictures taken of any of her injuries, nor did she want to have her injuries noted on the chart. During the examination, however, T.F. reported that R.B. had used his fingers to penetrate her.

[26] Constable Maure accompanied T.F. to the hospital when she first attended, and accompanied her again when she returned later that same day. While recalling the alleged assault, T.F. showed the officer a large bruise on her left forearm and reported that it was caused when she was trying to escape from R.B. On the voir dire, Constable Maure identified a photograph of this injury. T.F. further alleged that R.B. punched her a number of times in the face. The officer noted a cut between T.F.'s eyes and nose and also noted that she was bleeding lightly in the emergency room. It was Constable Maure's evidence that T.F.'s face was starting to swell at the hospital and appeared more swollen then when she first had contact with her earlier in the day.

[27] Constable Maure described T.F.'s demeanour at the hospital as being agitated, crying and fearful about completing the sexual assault kit. T.F. reported that she was in a significant amount of pain, especially in her rectal area. She was experiencing difficulty standing up. When asked by C.W. if R.B. had ejaculated, Constable Maure described T.F. as starting to shake, sob and dry heave.

[28] Constable Maure next contacted T.F. by telephone to make arrangements for her to provide a statement on June 14, 2016. But these efforts were unsuccessful, with T.F. apparently not yet in an emotional state to give a formal statement.

[29] A formal videotaped statement was taken from T.F. on June 21, 2016, ten days after the alleged offences. It was the evidence of Constable Maure that T.F. was simply not in a proper frame of mind to give a statement before then.

[30] As noted, the June 21, 2016 statement was videotaped. For some unexplained reason, Constable Maure did not arrange to have T.F. swear an oath or make an affirmation before giving her statement. Nor was she warned about the potential consequences of making a false statement.

[31] During her videotaped statement T.F. advised that she and R.B. were related to one another; they were cousins. She recalled knowing him as far back as grade school. From time to time as adults they would "hang-out" together. She denied that they were ever in a relationship given their family connection. She was adamant in denying that she had been intimate with R.B. on a consensual basis.

[32] In her videotaped statement, T.F. explained that R.B. attended at her home around 10:30 p.m. the night before she called police. The two drank some alcohol. When she asked him to leave she noted that R.B. was asleep in an armchair. She decided to let him sleep, went to her bedroom and closed the door. T.F. reported that she woke up to find R.B. raping her. She was unsure if he was vaginally or anally raping her as she experienced pain in both areas. She described R.B. as being very rough with her during the alleged sexual assault. When she attempted to get away by crawling on the floor he grabbed her by the ankles and pulled her back. He grabbed her cell phone and threw it when she tried to call for help. T.F. described trying to fight R.B. off but explained that she was unable to do so given his size. On her account he held her down, covered her face with his hand to keep her quiet, and hit her a number of times in the face. He struck her so forcefully that she reported "seeing stars and my ears ringing."

[33] T.F. reported during her videotaped statement that R.B. grabbed her around the throat, wrists and ankles during various points in the attack. At one point, while she was trying to escape, she reported that she managed to make it to the kitchen but that R.B. then grabbed her ankles and dragged her back into the bedroom.

[34] According to her videotaped statement, the attack ended when T.F. was able to crawl to her cell phone, hid in the bathroom and hit the emergency button to call 911. She had no recollection of how she was able to escape from her apartment. She next recalled the police and ambulance arriving at her home. She was outside her apartment when the police arrived.

[35] During her videotaped statement, T.F. indicated that she was shocked to see how much blood was on her mattress and also advised that she no longer has her period.

[36] During the statement Constable Maure referenced an incident that had occurred "in January," when T.F. had apparently called 911 to report that R.B. was "on top of her". R.B. allegedly ran into the woods to hide when she called for help. T.F. advised that she did not want to discuss the January incident. Her reason for not wanting to discuss it was, "it's my fault (unintelligible) talk to him again but".

[37] On June 15, 2016 T.F. had her friend, S.P., take a photograph of her face. The photograph of T.F's face shows a small cut on the bridge of her nose and two dark purplish bruises under each of her eyes.

[38] On June 21, 2016, S.P. took further photographs of T.F. One of the photographs shows a large bruise located slightly beneath her left elbow. A second photograph of the right arm shows a large bruise below the elbow but slightly above the wrist.

b) Analysis

Step 1 – Can the corroborative evidence be relied upon to establish threshold reliability?

[39] The Supreme Court in Bradshaw made clear that corroborative evidence could only be relied upon to establish threshold reliability when the evidence goes to the truthfulness or accuracy of the material aspects of the hearsay statement(s). In this case, the material aspects of the hearsay statements are that R.B. sexually and physically assaulted T.F. and caused her bodily harm.

[40] In the matter before the court, the corroborative evidence consists of the following:

• The 911 call.
• The observations made by Constables Maure and Boss of T.F's physical condition upon their arrival at the scene.
• The DNA reports, showing that T.F's blood was on R.B's fingers, hands and wrist, and that blood from both of them was on the mattress.
• Observations made at the hospital, both by Constable Maure and the nurse, C.W., of T.F.'s extensive injuries.
• Photographs of T.F's injuries.
• Photographs of the various fresh bloodstains located by police on the morning in question at T.F's apartment.

[41] The evidence is directly related to the truthfulness and accuracy of the material allegations contained in the hearsay statements made by T.F. specifically, that she was both raped and physically assaulted by R.B.

[42] It should also be noted that entirely independent of the principled exception to the hearsay rule, the statements made by R.B. that were captured on the recording of the 911-call are admissible pursuant to the party exception to the hearsay rule.

Step 2 – What are the dangers of admitting hearsay evidence at the threshold reliability stage?

[43] One must be mindful of the dangers of admitting the hearsay evidence that stem from the inability to cross-examine T.F.

[44] On this point, the Supreme Court in Bradshaw stated at paragraph 47 of its judgment:

… at the threshold reliability stage, corroborative evidence must work in conjunction with the circumstances to overcome the specific hearsay dangers raised by the tendered statement. When assessing the admissibility of hearsay evidence, "the scope of the inquiry must be tailored to the particular dangers presented by the evidence and limited to determining the evidentiary question of admissibility" (Khelawon, at para. 4). Thus, to overcome the hearsay dangers and establish substantive reliability, corroborative evidence must show that the material aspects of the statement are unlikely to change under cross-examination (Khelawon, at para. 107; Smith, at p. 937). Corroborative evidence does so if its combined effect, when considered in the circumstances of the case, shows that the only likely explanation for the hearsay statement is the declarant's truthfulness about, or the accuracy of, the material aspects of the statement (see U. (F.J.), at para. 40). Otherwise, alternative explanations for the statement that could have been elicited or probed through cross-examination, and the hearsay dangers, persist.

[45] I must therefore decide whether the inability to cross-examine T.F. about the truth and accuracy of her various statements (the hearsay dangers), are of such a nature that the various items of corroborative evidence serve to show that the material aspects of her statements (that the accused both sexually and physically assaulted her, and caused her bodily harm), would have been unlikely to change under cross-examination.

[46] Stated somewhat differently, am I satisfied that the only likely explanation for T.F.'s statements, given the corroborative evidence, is that she truthfully and accurately described what had happened to her in those statements – that is, that the accused raped and beat her and caused her injuries?

[47] In answering that question I am obligated to consider alternative, even speculative, explanations for the statements and corroborative evidence that might have been explored if cross-examination had been possible. If no such alternative explanations were apparent, then it would appear that the evidence would unlikely have changed under cross-examination, therefore eliminating concerns about the substantive reliability of the hearsay statements.

[48] In approaching the question of substantive reliability, I am mindful that T.F. provided two different versions of how Mr. Beardy entered her home on June 11, 2016. When police first arrived at the scene, T.F. told Constable Maure that she woke up and found R.B. attacking her. She told the officer that she did not let him into her home and she had no idea how he gained entry. Later that day, while at the hospital, and then ten days later in her videotaped statement, T.F. recalled that R.B. had visited with her earlier in the evening at her apartment. She indicated that he had fallen asleep on a chair in the living room and that she had gone to bed and closed her bedroom door. She then awoke to find R.B. on top of her.

[49] To be sure, these two accounts are materially different on the question of how R.B. came to be inside her apartment. I do note, however, that the initial statement was made in the immediate aftermath of the alleged attack when T.F. appears to have still been in a state of shock. Importantly, despite this inconsistency, the core allegation of the alleged assaults (sexual and physical) remained consistent as T.F.'s various statements.

[50] When assessing the evidence in its totality, on a balance of probabilities, I am hard pressed to identify another plausible explanation for what may have occurred that evening other than what T.F. described in her hearsay statements. The DNA evidence establishes that located on R.B.'s hands was both his blood and T.F.'s blood. The DNA evidence further establishes that located on his cargo shorts was both blood belonging to him and T.F.

[51] On the swabs taken from T.F.'s external genital area and rectal area, DNA testing also revealed the presence of R.B.'s DNA. His blood was also determined to be located on the mattress through DNA testing. Despite all of this, it is curious that the police did not note any injuries or cuts on R.B. at the time of his arrest, including during the search that followed the arrest which included swabbing his penis for evidence. (That said, the penis swab was administered by a police officer, it would appear that no medical practitioner examined R.B.'s genitals for cuts or abrasions.)

[52] I note that although R.B.'s genetic material was found on T.F.'s genitalia and rectum there was no apparent semen. On T.F.'s account she woke up to R.B. raping her. She immediately struggled and attempted to fight him off. The absence of semen is consistent with the sexual assault being interrupted before R.B. ejaculated.

[53] Importantly, significant physical injuries to T.F., which appeared to have been freshly inflicted, and which common sense suggests are consistent only with a physical beating, were observed by police when they attended in response to her 911 call. These observations are corroborated by the photographs that became exhibits on the voir dire and the observations made at the hospital by the nurse. There was also a substantial amount of blood present in the apartment.

[54] Finally, when the police arrived at T.F.'s apartment in response to the 911 call R.B. was still present. On the 911 recording, R.B. can be heard making the following statement: "I'm the one that brought you home, like … You fell over like (u/i)."

[55] A neighbour testified that she was sitting on the porch when T.F. and R.B. arrived at T.F.'s residence late on the evening of June 11, 2016. She was not friends with either of them. Importantly, the neighbour did not observe any apparent injuries on T.F., who she described as walking right past her in order to gain entry to the building. The photographs, however, show significant bruising to T.F.'s face in the aftermath of June 12, 2016. It is clear that the nature and extent of the injuries apparent in the photographs are simply inconsistent with the sort of injury one might expect from a fall. The blood in the apartment was found in four areas, on the mattress, on the floor, on the doorframe (the palm print) and along the outside of the pedestal sink in the bathroom. The blood located in so many areas of the apartment appears far more consistent with the violent assault described by T.F. to the authorities than it does a fall.

[56] I have turned my mind to the possibility of an unknown intruder breaking into the home and assaulting T.F. I have discounted this as a possibility for a number of reasons. First, as indicated above, an independent witness saw only the accused and T.F. enter the apartment in the late evening hours. The neighbour was outside sitting on the porch at the time. T.F. was in her apartment until such time as the police found her outside. Second, the photographs do not depict any indication of a forced entry. Lastly, the DNA evidence also establishes that the only sources of blood were the accused and the complainant.

[57] Mr. Van Wallegham, on behalf of his client, R.B., submits that the forensic evidence is "just as consistent with consensual sex" if the physical injuries are set aside. The law is clear that the evidence must be viewed in its totality and not piecemeal. When the evidence is viewed in its entirety it seems improbable to the extreme that T.F. consented to having sex with R.B.

[58] I have further considered if it was possible that T.F. and R.B. engaged in consensual sex followed by an argument that turned physical. Is it possible that T.F. made up the allegation of sexual assault after being physically assaulted by R.B.? The presence of R.B.'s DNA on T.F.'s genitals and rectum is impossible to reconcile with a consensual sexual encounter. Further, the remainder of the physical evidence, including the location, nature and extent of T.F.'s injuries appear to be entirely consistent with a violent assault – which is exactly what T.F. repeatedly described taking place (in her various statements) when she woke to find R.B. raping her.

[59] Further, as defence counsel conceded, there is no apparent motive for T.F. to falsely implicate R.B. In so concluding, I am further mindful that T.F. acknowledged to Constable Maure during her videotaped statement that there had been a prior incident involving R.B. "in January". Apparently she had called 911 alleging that R.B. was on "top of her". She did not want to discuss the January incident and responded, "It's my fault (unintelligible) talk to him again but". In other words, given the opportunity to implicate R.B. with respect to an incident in January, T.F. refrained from doing so; this is not at all consistent with someone inclined to make a false allegation.

[60] Procedural and substantive reliability can work in tandem. Here, there is an element of procedural reliability in that, at least with respect to her June 21, 2016 statement, there is a video recording. In that regard, the complainant's demeanour can be considered in assessing the veracity and accuracy of her allegations. That said, I am mindful that this statement was not made under oath nor was T.F. warned about the dangers of making false statements. In terms of substantive reliability, there is the corroborative evidence outlined above.

[61] To conclude, based on the entirety of the record, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the corroborative evidence rules out alternative explanations. As a result, the only likely explanation for the various statements made by T.F. is that those statements truthfully and accurately describe what took place, that R.B. sexually and physically assaulted T.F. in the manner that she described in her statements.

[62] I have therefore concluded that the following out of court statements by T.F. are admissible at trial for the truth of their contents:

• Statements made by T.F. during a 911 call that she placed on the morning of June 12th, 2016, when she initially summoned the authorities to her residence.
• A statement that T.F. reportedly made to Constable Maure on the morning of June 12, 2016, after the officer attended in response to the 911 call.
• A statement that T.F. reportedly made to Constable Maure while the two of them were at hospital on the afternoon of June 12th, 2016.
• A statement that T.F. reportedly made to Constable Maure on June 14, 2016, when the officer contacted her to make arrangements for a video-recorded interview.
• A video-recorded statement that T.F. provided to police on June 21, 2016, ten days after the alleged assaults.

Released: July 25, 2017

Signed: Justice Sarah Cleghorn