This decision addresses the evidentiary challenges in sexual offence cases involving child witnesses, focusing on the impact of cross-examination on the credibility and reliability of a young complainant.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against an eight-year-old child and breaching a court order prohibiting communication with children under 16 without permission.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, particularly regarding whether the accused was seen in person or only via video chats, which undermined the reliability of the sexual offence allegations.

The complainant’s mother’s testimony was also found to be neither credible nor reliable, with concerns about possible coaching and financial motives.

However, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused breached the prohibition order by being in the complainant’s company and communicating with him, including via video chats, and convicted the accused on those counts while acquitting on the sexual offence charges.

The Crown brought a voir dire application under R. v. Khan to admit an audio recording of a child, M., disclosing alleged sexual abuse by her parents.

The court found that while the necessity criterion for hearsay admissibility was met, the reliability criterion was not.

Factors undermining reliability included the absence of confirmation of M.'s understanding of the importance of telling the truth, the inability to assess her demeanor (audio only), lack of contemporaneous cross-examination, incomplete disclosure of prior statements, and evidence of potential influence or motive to lie.

The court also exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence due to its prejudicial value outweighing its probative value, given that other reasonable inferences could be drawn from the child's statement.

The application was dismissed, and the audio recording was deemed inadmissible.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against the accused, T.B., involving his niece, D.B., when she was five or six years old.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, supported by her mother's evidence regarding opportunity.

The defence argued that the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to the significant passage of time, her young age at the time of the alleged events, and inconsistencies in her and her mother's recollections.

The defence also highlighted the accused's identical twin brother as a potential source of confusion.

The court, applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and considering the unique aspects of child witness testimony, rejected the accused's denial, finding his evidence unreliable and incredible due to numerous contradictions and his extensive criminal record for dishonesty.

The court found the complainant's detailed narrative compelling and credible, despite minor inconsistencies, and ultimately found the accused guilty on all counts.