R. v. Whitehouse

R. v. Whitehouse

The court held that the challenged provisions (the provisions of Bill C-51 including ss.278.92 and 278.94 and the expanded s.276) do not infringe ss.7 or 11(d) of the Charter. Requiring detailed particulars for admissibility applications and permitting complainant participation and counsel at those hearings are constitutional measures that appropriately balance the accused's trial rights with complainant privacy, security and equality interests; therefore the Charter challenge is dismissed and no declaration of invalidity is warranted.

Citation
2020 NSSC 87
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Shoden Whitehouse
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault; Charter Challenge / Pre Trial Charter Application and Admissibility Hearing Under S.276 and S.278.92
Outcome
Application dismissed; impugned provisions upheld as constitutional and not inconsistent with ss.7 or 11(d) of the Charter
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.11(d), Production of Records, Admissibility of Sexual Activity Evidence (s.276), Records in Possession of Accused (s.278.92), Bill C 51, Right to Silence, Complainant Participation in Voir Dire
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Sexual Offences Charter S.7 Charter S.11(d) Production of Records Admissibility of Sexual Activity Evidence (s.276) +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Shoden Whitehouse

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault; Charter Challenge / Pre Trial Charter Application and Admissibility Hearing Under S.276 and S.278.92

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the requirement that the accused disclose evidence in an application infringe ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter?
  2. 2 Does the complainant's statutory right to participate in admissibility hearings infringe ss.7 and 11(d)?
  3. 3 Does the expanded scope of s.276 (sexual activity) violate ss.7 and 11(d)?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the challenged provisions (the provisions of Bill C-51 including ss.278.92 and 278.94 and the expanded s.276) do not infringe ss.7 or 11(d) of the Charter. Requiring detailed particulars for admissibility applications and permitting complainant participation and counsel at those hearings are constitutional measures that appropriately balance the accused's trial rights with complainant privacy, security and equality interests; therefore the Charter challenge is dismissed and no declaration of invalidity is warranted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; impugned provisions upheld as constitutional and not inconsistent with ss.7 or 11(d) of the Charter

Orders

  • Charter declaration of invalidity dismissed
  • No remedy granted; legislation (ss.278.92, 278.94, related amendments in Bill C-51 and expanded s.276) declared constitutional