R. Mullins

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit the hearsay evidence of a 14-year-old complainant in a sexual assault and sexual interference case.

The evidence consisted of video-recorded statements to police and a social worker, and audio-recorded testimony from the preliminary inquiry.

The Crown argued the complainant would suffer psychological trauma if forced to testify at trial.

The court found the evidence met the criteria of necessity and threshold reliability under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court also held that admitting the evidence did not violate the accused's rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, as the accused had a full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant at the preliminary inquiry.

The application was granted.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault with a weapon, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, applied uneven scrutiny to the testimonies, erred in assessing motive, and reversed the burden of proof under W. (D.).

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the credibility of both parties in light of the physical evidence, including the complainant's severe injuries from a hatchet, and correctly applied the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.