R. v. R.R.D.G.

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Pre Trial Application Under S.278.3 for Production of Third‑party Records (hearing and Reasons)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the IWK, Roth Associates and DCS records are "records" under s.278.1
2. 2 Whether the accused met the s.278.5(1)(b) "likely relevance" threshold
3. 3 Whether production is "necessary in the interests of justice" under s.278.5(1)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge concluded the defence did not establish on a case‑specific evidentiary foundation that the requested IWK, Roth Associates (JB one‑time contacts and MR ongoing therapy) and January 2007 DCS case recording were likely relevant to an issue at trial or, alternatively, that production was necessary in the interests of justice. The therapeutic records have high privacy expectations and low probative value in the circumstances; the accused already had significant disclosure (police statements, videotaped interview, preliminary inquiry cross‑examination) and elected not to call or fully examine witnesses at earlier stages, reducing necessity for further intrusive disclosure....

Court Disposition

Motion denied in part and granted in part: most records not produced; limited disclosure ordered

Orders

• DCS to produce and disclose the September 28, 2010 videotaped interview of MR to the accused and to the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service while retaining the original until trial and any appeals conclude
• All other records sought (IWK visit records, Roth Associates records for JB one‑time contact and MR therapy, and the January 2007 DCS case recording) will not be produced to the court for review or to the accused