ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. V.A., 2026 ONSC 562
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Applicant
– and –
V.A.
Respondent
Maia Caramanna, Counsel for the Crown
Rory Ziv, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD:January 5, 2026
RULINGS: ADMISSIBILITY OF VIDEO-RECORDED EVIDENCE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 715.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE,
CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AND 486.2 APPLICATION
de sa j
1) Application Pursuant to [Section 715.1](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html) of the [Criminal Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html)
Overview
1The Accused (Respondent) is charged with two counts of Sexual Assault and one count of Invitation to Sexual Touching, against S.S. (“S.S.” or “the complainant”), contrary to ss. 271 and 152 of the Criminal Code, respectively.
2The Crown seeks an Order granting the admission of the video-recorded statement of the complainant into evidence for the truth of its contents, pursuant to s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.
3The Crown submits that the statement was made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence, and it is anticipated that the complainant will adopt the contents of the statement in her evidence.
4The Respondent takes the position that the statement should not be admitted as it was not within a “reasonable time” of the events. Alternatively, the statement has numerous inconsistencies that raise concerns with its reliability, and accordingly, it should be excluded.
5Having considered the statement together with the authorities, I am satisfied that the statement meets the requirements of admissibility subject to the complainant “adopting” the statement at trial. Provided that the complainant adopts the statement, the Crown will be permitted to tender it.
6The reasons for my decision are outlined below.
7These reasons also deal with the challenge for cause issue raised by the defendant and the 486.2 application brought by the Crown.
Overview
8The charges pertain to events between October 22, 2020 and April 30, 2022. The complainant was 13 and 14 years of age at the time of the allegations.
9On multiple occasions between October 22nd, 2020, and April 30th, 2022, it is alleged that the Respondent attended the upstairs bedroom of his 13-year-old stepdaughter, the complainant, at their residence in the Town of Georgina. The Respondent would attend her room at bedtime and sit on her bed. He would talk to her while rubbing and squeezing her breasts with his hands, both on top and underneath her clothing.
10On one occasion between October 22nd, 2020, and April 30th, 2022, it is alleged that the Respondent and the complainant were alone in the residence. The Respondent asked the complainant if she had a boyfriend and if she had her first kiss yet. The Respondent told her he wanted to teach her how to kiss and signaled repeatedly for her to come sit close to him. The complainant repeatedly declined and the Respondent eventually stopped.
11On the night of July 24th, 2021, the complainant was on a family camping trip at the Black River Wilderness Park located in Washago, Ontario. The complainant was inside the family tent with her two younger sisters. Her mother and brother had left the campsite for the night. The Respondent entered the tent and laid on his air mattress. When her sisters fell asleep, the Respondent called the complainant over to lay on his mattress beside him. He proceeded to give the complainant a back massage. He lifted up her shirt, unhooked her bra, rubbed her back, and then moved his hands over her buttocks. The Respondent then proceeded to rub and squeeze her breasts while commenting on their shape and size. He asked her if she had pubic hair “down there” while he was rubbing her breasts.
12On February 23rd, 2023, the complainant provided a statement to the police detailing the acts outlined above. The statement was audio and video recorded. The complainant was 15 years old when she was interviewed and provided the statement.
Analysis
13The Applicant seeks an Order granting the admission of the video-recorded statement of the complainant into evidence, pursuant to s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code.
14The main issues in contention between the parties are:
(a) Whether the statement was made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence; and
(b) Whether portions of the statement are inconsistent with other rules of evidence, namely the rule against prior inconsistent statements, rendering those portions inadmissible.
Objectives of s. 715.1 of the [Criminal Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html)
15As the Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. F.(C.C.), 1997 CanLII 306 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 1183, at para 21, the primary goal of s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code is to “create a record of what is the best recollection of the event”; this will be of “inestimable assistance in ascertaining the truth.”
16There is also another objective: to prevent or reduce the likelihood of inflicting further injury or trauma on complainants through participation in the criminal justice system.
R. v. F.(C.C.), 1997 CanLII 306 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 1183, at para 21.
R. v. Levogiannis, 1993 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 475, at paras 14 and 23.
17The section recognizes that the ordinary rules of evidence and criminal procedure can often make it difficult for vulnerable witnesses, including children, to testify, particularly in the context of sexual assaults. As Chief Justice McLachlin stated in R. v. D.A.I.:
Sexual assault is an evil. Too frequently, its victims are the vulnerable in our society – children and the mentally handicapped. Yet rules of evidence and criminal procedure, based on the norm of the average witness, may make it difficult for these victims to testify in courts of law. The challenge for the law is to permit the truth to be told, while protecting the right of the accused to a fair trial and guarding against wrongful conviction. [Emphasis added]
R. v. D.A.I., 2012 SCC 5, at para 1.
The Applicable Test
18Section 715.1 of the Criminal Code creates a statutory exception to the hearsay rule. Pursuant to this section, video-recorded evidence is admissible where:
(a) The victim or witness was under the age of eighteen at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed;
(b) The video describes the acts complained of;
(c) The victim or witness adopts the contents of the recording while testifying and is available for cross-examination;
(d) The recording was made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence; and
(e) The presiding judge is of the opinion that admitting the statement would not interfere with the proper administration of justice.
19The trial judge may exercise his/her discretion to exclude or edit the videotape if prejudice from its admission would outweigh its probative value. It is only in rare cases where admission operates so unfairly to the accused that discretion is exercised to exclude the statement entirely: R. v. F.(C.C.), supra, at para 51.
20There are several factors a trial judge may take into account in exercising their discretion to exclude the video-recorded statement:
(a) The form of questions asked of the witness;
(b) Any interest of anyone participating in making the statement;
(c) The quality of the videotape and audiotape;
(d) The presence or absence of inadmissible evidence in the videotape;
(e) The ability to edit inappropriate material;
(f) Whether other out-of-court statements have been admitted;
(g) Any visual information in the tape which might tend to prejudice the accused (e.g. unrelated injuries of the victim);
(h) Whether the prosecution has been allowed to use any other method to facilitate the giving of evidence by the complainant;
(i) Whether the trial is by judge alone or by jury;
(j) The amount of time which has passed since the making of the tape and the present ability of the witness to effectively relate to the events described.
R. v. F.(C.C.), 1997 CanLII 306 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1183, at paras 51-52.
Was the Statement Made Within a Reasonable Time?
21The onus is on the Crown to prove that the videotaped statement was taken “within a reasonable time” on a balance of probabilities.
R. v. G.(S.) (2007), 2007 CanLII 20779 (ON SC), 221 CCC (3d) 439 (Ont. S.C.J.), at para 14.
22In this case, the charges pertain to events between October 22, 2020 and April 30, 2022 when the complainant was 13 and 14 years of age. On February 23rd, 2023, the complainant provided a statement to the police detailing the acts complained of. She was 15 years old at the time of the statement.
23The Respondent submits that a statement made 10 to 28 months after the alleged offence by a young person approaching adulthood is not a video made in a “reasonable period of time”. The Respondent points out that the statement sought to be tendered even references allegations going back to when the complainant was in grade 5 or grade 6 when she would have been 10 or 11 years old. (See page 32 of Exhibit D - Transcript of Part 2 of Statement.)
24The Respondent maintains that the complainant is an adult now and is able to provide the same evidence at trial. Her recollection of the events makes it unnecessary to rely on the statement. The Respondent also submits that the inconsistencies in the recorded statement undermine its reliability and, accordingly, should further militate in favour of excluding the statement.
25The Respondent submits that even if the Court decides to admit the video statement, those portions of the video that relate to the allegation of July 24, 2021 and those events falling outside the time period of the indictment should be edited out.
26In this case, I am satisfied that the recording was made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence. Subject to the complainant adopting the statement at trial, I am also satisfied that admitting the statement would not otherwise interfere with the proper administration of justice.
27Whether the video was created within a reasonable time after the alleged offences is a determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the totality of the circumstances.
28As the jurisprudence makes clear, determining reasonableness is not merely a calculation of time, as “strict timelines stand in direct opposition to the nuanced and case-specific analysis called for in a reasonableness inquiry.”
R. v. D.O.L., 1993 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1993] 4 SCR 419, at paras 75-77.
29Important factors to consider are the reasons for the delay and the impact of delay on the child’s ability to accurately recall the events in question.
R. v. S.(P.) (2000), 2000 CanLII 5706 (ON CA), 144 CCC (3d) 120 (Ont. C.A.), at para 71.
R. v. B.D., 2024 unreported, Ont. Sup. Ct., at para 46.
30The complainant here was 13 and 14 years of age at the time of the allegations, and 15 years old when she was interviewed. The delay did not impact her ability to accurately recall the events in issue. Additionally, the complainant’s recall of details and ability to describe a coherent narrative reflect positively on the statement’s reliability.
31In considering the reason for delay, the complainant describes how she convinced herself it was normal behaviour on the part of the Respondent, until she disclosed the incident to her mom. The Respondent was her stepdad. He was still in her life at the time of the alleged touching. The statement was provided a short time after the defendant and her mother separated.
32As addressed in R. v. P.S., 2019 ONCA 637, children will often delay disclosure of abuse, particularly when it is sexual and involves offenders in a position of trust. The Court aptly stated, “it would make little sense to take a known feature of many child complainants’ journeys toward the justice system – delayed disclosure – and make it a dispositive factor in the admissibility inquiry.” Indeed, in R. v. P.S., the Court found that three years and four months was reasonable.
33I agree with the Crown that the complainant’s emotional makeup is also relevant. In her statement to police, she describes a pre-disposition for anxiety, stating that she experiences panic attacks and can get “really, really anxious” and overwhelmed. In my view, this is another factor that militates in favour of admitting the statement.
34I do not agree with the defence’s suggestion that some of the events involving a longer period of delay render the statement inadmissible, or that those aspects of the statement should be edited out as they involve a longer delay. Here, the acts complained of are related and transpired over a period of time. Again, the assessment is a nuanced one and cannot be reduced to a simple calculation of months or even years.
35Provided that the complainant adopts the statement, the Crown will be permitted to tender it.
Portions of the Statement that Should be Edited
36The Respondent submits that during the interview of the complainant, the interviewing officer made various remarks that were “encouraging” the complainant, which are nothing more than “oath helping”. If the statement is admitted, the Respondent asks that these statements be edited out.
37The Respondent also submits that any references the complainant has made that would amount to prior consistent statements (for example, remarks about the timing of when she told her mother about the events) should also be removed.
38The Applicant consents to redact the portions of the complainant’s interview that contains remarks that amount to “oath helping”, namely:
(a) Transcript of Police Statement of S.S., Part I, February 23, 2023
i. Page 63 lines 17-27
ii. Page 62 lines 25-27
(b) Transcript of Police Statement of S.S., Part II, February 23, 2023
i. Page 25 lines 13-15
ii. Page 38 lines 5-13
39The Crown opposes removing any additional edits and maintains the additional references identified by the Respondent are not prior consistent statements. The specific references are as follows:
(a) Transcript of Police Statement of S.S., Part II, February 23, 2023
i. Page 42 lines 23-25: “And my mom has asked me, ‘cause she like, was curious. She asked me, um, how often it happened. But I – I told her like, I don’t – I can’t remember and I still can’t remember.”
ii. Page 46 lines 19-22: “Um, yeah. I only – I remembered this a couple o’ days after about that, um, which I told my mom like, two days after I remembered.”
40As per the Supreme Court of Canada, hearing the prior consistent statement solely for the fact that it was made may be helpful for the jury. It assists them in assessing the sequence of events from the alleged offence to the prosecution, so that they can understand the conduct of the complainant.: R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, at para 38. R. v. F. (J.E.), 1993 CanLII 3384 (ON CA), [1993] OJ No 2589 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. R. (A.E.), 2001 CanLII 11579 (ON CA), [2001] OJ No 3222 (Ont. C.A.), at para 14.
41I agree with the Crown that the impugned passages are merely an aid in understanding the complainant’s evidence and the chronology of events. They relate to how and when the complainant reported the incidents to police, and why she failed to mention one of the incidents to police until the end of her statement.
42These portions need not be edited from the videotaped statement. They do not offend any evidentiary rules and are otherwise admissible. A jury instruction limiting the use of prior consistent statements will be sufficient to address any risk of prejudicial reasoning.
2) Ruling on Challenge for Cause
43Mr. V.A. applies to challenge for cause.
44In reliance on the case of R. v. Lonneberg, 2025 ABKB 110, 2025, ABKB110, Mr. V.A. proposes the following questions:
(a) Based on your interaction with Black people, or simply your upbringing, background or experiences, do you have a negative view, no matter how minor, of Black people?
(b) Do you think Black people are more likely to commit physical or sexual violence?
(c) Regardless of your views and thoughts of Black people, would you be able to set aside those views and thoughts, and decide this case in a fair and impartial manner, using only the evidence produced at trial and the law as described to you by the judge?
45The Crown does not oppose the application itself, but rather takes issue with the proposed content. The Crown submits that questions (a) and (b) above do not meet the threshold for entitlement.
46The Crown would consent to a challenge for cause along the following lines, as endorsed by Justice Akhtar in R. v. G.R., 2024 ONSC 4146, at para 15, and Justice Code in R. v. Stanley, 2021 ONSC 6110, at para 20:
(a) In this case, Mr. V.A. is a Black man charged with allegations of sexual assault. He is entitled to a fair trial free from bias and partiality. Do you have any pre-conceived notions relating to Black persons that would affect your ability to judge this case fairly and impartially?
Challenges for Cause Based on Racial Prejudice
47In the seminal case of R. v. Parks, 1993 CanLII 3383 (ON CA), [1993] OJ No 2157, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered a request to challenge for cause on grounds of partiality where the accused was a black man. The Court held that, without doubt, there existed a realistic possibility of racial prejudice tainting the jury pool. The Court endorsed the use of a single, very specific question to screen this issue: “Would your ability to judge the evidence in the case without bias, prejudice or partiality be affected by the fact that the person charged is a black Jamaican immigrant and the deceased is a white man?”: R. v. Parks, [1993] OJ No 2157 (Ont CA), at paras 25, 55.
48In permitting this question, the Court emphasized the importance of its specificity. Rather than inquiring about a juror’s antecedents or personal beliefs, it focused on the ability of jurors to set aside certain beliefs, opinions, or prejudices when performing their duty: R. v. Parks, 1993 CanLII 3383 (ON CA), [1993] OJ No 2157 (Ont CA), at paras 23, 25, 31.36-37
49Generally speaking, whether a juror has biases is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether the juror has the ability to set aside those biases in discharging their duty: R. v. Hubbert, 1975 CanLII 53 (ON CA), [1975] OJ No 2595 (Ont CA), at paras 24, 31; R. v. Find, 2001 SCC 32, at para 44; R. v. Chouhan, 2021 SCC 26, at para 66; R. v. Stanley, 2020 ONSC 6876; R. v. Parks, 1993 CanLII 3383 (ON CA), [1993] OJ No 2157 (Ont CA), at paras 36-37.
50In R. v. Stanley, 2020 ONSC 6876, Justice Code found questions similar to those proposed by Mr. V.A. unacceptable as they made no reference to the behavioural component of partiality contained in the second prong of the test. They were also overtly directed at discovering the “personality, beliefs, prejudices, likes or dislikes” of prospective jurors, which appellate courts have repeatedly denounced.
R. v. Stanley, 2020 ONSC 6876, at paras 45, 47-48.
51As Code J. explained, “these kinds of questions engage prospective jurors in a complex and time-consuming process concerning contentious subjects, their efficacy has never been tested, and expert social science opinion is divided as to whether they are more effective than the ‘straight forward’ Parks question.”: R. v. Stanley, 2020 ONSC 6876, at para 46.
Challenge Questions
52Having considered the matter, I would permit the following questions to be asked:
(a) In deciding whether the prosecution has proven that an accused person is guilty, each member of the jury must judge the evidence fairly, without bias, prejudice or partiality. Mr. V.A. is black. Do you believe that you have any attitudes or beliefs about black people that would affect your ability to judge the evidence fairly and objectively?
(b) Do you think that it is possible that people have biases based on race or ethnicity that they are not even aware of?
(c) If you are chosen to be a member of the jury in this case, are you willing to remain mindful of the possibility that you might have such biases, and to set them aside so that you will judge the evidence presented at trial fairly and objectively?
Section 486.2 Application
53I have considered the materials filed on the application. I am satisfied that testimony through CCTV would facilitate the giving of a full and candid account of the complainant’s evidence and would be in accordance with the proper administration of justice.
54The defence does not oppose the application. The complainant is youthful and only recently turned 18. The offences are sexual in nature and occurred when the complainant was a minor. The accused was her stepfather. She has expressed that the accused’s presence can cause her to be uncomfortable and make it difficult for her to focus. It is evident that she has anxiety. I am satisfied that being in a separate room, where she does not have to see the defendant would assist her in providing her account of the events.
55The 486.2 application is granted.
de Sa J
Released: January 29, 2026
CITATION: R. v. V.A., 2026 ONSC 562
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-91104967
DATE: 20260129
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
V.A.
RULINGS: ADMISSIBILITY OF VIDEO-RECORDED EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 715.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AND 486.2 APPLICATION
de Sa J
Released: January 29, 2026