ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Applicant
– and –
R.R.
Respondent
V. Decker, for the applicant
G. Snow, for the respondent
HEARD: March 30, 2026
RULING ON CCTV APPLICATION
RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION
By court order made under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the evidence taken, the information given and the representations made at the application and any information that may identify the person described in this ruling as the complainant may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner.
MITCHELL, J.:
Overview
1On this amended single-count indictment, the respondent, R.R., stands charged that he sexually assaulted the complainant, R.S., contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”). The Crown alleges the sexual assault occurred on January 19, 2023.
2The accused and the complainant are former spouses.
3This matter is scheduled to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury commencing June 1, 2026.
4The Crown brings this application pursuant to s. 486.2(2) of the Code seeking a ruling that the complainant be permitted to testify at trial by way of closed-circuit television (“CCTV”).
5The complainant testified remotely in support of the Crown’s application. The Crown bears the burden of proof on this application. The Crown is required to meet its evidentiary burden on a balance of probabilities.
Analysis
6Historically, testimony via CCTV was only available for children and persons with developmental disabilities and only with respect to certain limited enumerated offences. Bill C–2: “Protection of Children and Other Vulnerable Persons Amendments to the Criminal Code and Canada Evidence Act”1, extended the use of testimonial aids to vulnerable adult victims and witnesses.
7The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Levogiannis2 considered the constitutionality of s. 486(2.1) which provided for the use of CCTV and other testimonial aids. Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dube speaking for the court stated at paragraph 14:
The goal of the court process is truth seeking and, to that end, the evidence of all those involved in judicial proceedings must be given in a way that is most favourable to eliciting the truth.
8Section 13 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights came into force on July 23, 2015 and provides that victims have the right to request testimonial aids. The Bill of Rights resulted in amendments to the Code, including s. 486.2. The effect of the amendments was to lower the threshold for entitlement to such an order to include adult witnesses not under a disability.
9Prior to the amendments, courts could make such an order only where it was necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the acts complained of. Now such an order may be made where it would merely facilitate the giving of a full and candid account of the acts complained of or otherwise be in the interest of the proper administration of justice. (emphasis added)
10In determining whether a witness will be permitted to testify outside the courtroom, the court is required to consider the factors listed in s. 486.2(3). Of the enumerated factors, the following are relevant on this application:
(a) the age of the witness;
(b) the witnesses mental or physical disabilities, if any
(c) the nature of the offence(s);
(d) the nature of any relationship between the witness and the accused;
(e) whether the witness needs the order for their security or to protect them from intimidation or retaliation;
(f) not applicable;
(f.1) not applicable;
(g) society’s interest in encouraging the reporting of offences and the participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice process; and
(h) any other factor that the judge or justice considers relevant.
11R.S. is 59 years of age. She suffers from severe depression and was diagnosed in 2017 with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She is currently unemployed and receiving disability benefits. She was formally employed as a family physician. She last practised medicine in 2020. Her mental illness manifests in physical symptoms including, suicidal ideation, tearfulness, loneliness and isolation, and a lack of concentration. She testified that her PTSD symptoms have increased and her depression has worsened since her marriage ended in January 2023.
12R.S. and the accused are presently involved in family law proceedings. She admitted to having been physically present seated in the body of a courtroom with the accused for purposes of the family law proceedings. However, she has never testified in a courtroom. As part of the family law proceedings, she was cross-examined under oath. However, the cross examination was conducted via Zoom. She recalls that the accused was present on Zoom during her cross-examination and that facing him on Zoom made her extremely anxious and made her feel nauseous, shaky and caused her to sweat.
13R.S. says she believes that testifying in the physical presence of the accused in a courtroom will be “horrifying and frightening”. She believes that her nerves will be “so frazzled” she will be unable to remember events and to give a cohesive response to questions. R.S. says she believes testifying from a CCTV suite will help reduce her anxiety and will allow her to concentrate and will enhance her ability to “tell her story in a precise way”. R.S. explained that she does not fear for her physical safety when in the physical presence of the accused; rather, she fears for her “emotional safety”.
14During cross-examination, R.S. clarified that her fears do not relate to the simple act of testifying rather her fears are directly related to being in the physical presence of the accused.
15The alleged offence is serious and involves an allegation of sexual violence by the accused. Specifically, the complainant alleges the accused forced her to engage in anal intercourse without her consent. R.R. is the complainant’s former intimate partner and spouse.
16The respondent submits that the complainant is an adult who does not suffer from a physical or mental disability affecting her ability to testify. Accordingly, the Crown has failed to establish the prerequisite conditions for deviating from the right of an accused to be present in court during the whole of his trial.
17I disagree. The allegations involve sexual violence inflicted by the respondent against R.S. R.S. is particularly vulnerable having regard to her mental health issues. I accept her evidence that she fears being in the physical presence of the respondent and that her ability to provide a coherent, concise and reliable account of the events forming the subject matter of the allegations will be materially compromised should she be required to testify in the presence of the accused. Furthermore, society has an interest in encouraging the reporting of sexual offences and permitting victims of sexual offences to testify via CCTV encourages such reporting and facilitates their participation in the criminal justice system.
18The threshold on this application is not high. The Crown need only establish that permitting the witness to testify outside of the courtroom will facilitate the giving of a full and candid account of the acts complained of or would otherwise be in the interest of the proper administration of justice. In the circumstances of this case, the Crown has met both prongs of the test.
19I am satisfied on the evidence that R.S.’ anxiety level will be significantly reduced if she is relieved of having to face the respondent in court while testifying. I find that the expected reduction in her anxiety level, if permitted to testify remotely, will facilitate the complainant in giving a full and candid account of the events underlying the allegations before the court.
20Having regard to the factors under s. 486.2(3), I find the Crown has met the threshold required for the issuance of the requested order. I further find that use of CCTV by R.S. as a testimonial aid is in the interests of the proper administration of justice because it is consistent with the truth-seeking goal of the court process and will encourage the reporting of sexual offences.
21As an aside, with the applicant’s re-election at the last attendance to be tried by a judge without a jury, the demeanour evidence of the complainant becomes far less material to the trier of fact’s assessment of the complainant’s reliability and credibility.
Disposition
22Application granted and an order permitting the complainant to testify via CCTV shall issue.
Justice A. K. Mitchell
Date: April 23, 2026
Footnotes
- received Royal Assent on July 20, 2005.
- 1993 47 (SCC), [1993] S.C.J. No. 70.