R. v. R.S.H.

R. v. R.S.H.

At stage 1 the court found the defence met procedural requirements and the likely relevance/necessity threshold only in respect of the May 10, 2023 Dr. Szudek treatment record because it was contemporaneous with police reporting, was scheduled to investigate symptoms linked by the complainant's mother to the alleged...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 NSSC 215
Parties
Prosecutor/crown: His Majesty the King; Defendant/accused: R. S. H.; Complainant/victim: B.A.
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Section 278 Application Stage 1 (in Camera)
Outcome
Application granted in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Section 278 Third Party Records, Likely Relevance Standard, Necessity in the Interests of Justice, Publication Ban S.486.4
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Privacy Law Charter Law Section 278 Third Party Records Likely Relevance Standard Necessity in the Interests of Justice Publication Ban S.486.4

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Prosecutor/crown

R. S. H.

Defendant/accused

B.A.

Complainant/victim

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Section 278 Application Stage 1 (in Camera)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether each requested third‑party record is likely relevant to an issue at trial or to the competence of the complainant to testify
  2. 2 Whether production of each record is necessary in the interests of justice balancing full answer and defence against complainant privacy/equality
  3. 3 Whether datedness and subject‑matter of records defeats likely relevance

Ratio Decidendi

At stage 1 the court found the defence met procedural requirements and the likely relevance/necessity threshold only in respect of the May 10, 2023 Dr. Szudek treatment record because it was contemporaneous with police reporting, was scheduled to investigate symptoms linked by the complainant's mother to the alleged assaults, and could contain case‑specific information with impeachment value; therefore that single record must be produced to the judge for in camera review. The court rejected production of the 2017 psychiatric report, the 2005 speech‑language report, and the 2005 Dr. Brady psychological report because there was no case‑specific evidentiary foundation showing they were...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Order that the May 10, 2023 treatment record of B.A. with Dr. Ewa Szudek be produced to the court for in camera review pursuant to s.278.6
  • Order that production of the 2017 psychiatric assessment report, the March 22, 2005 Speech‑Language Pathology report, and the June 13, 2005 Dr. Erika Brady Infant/Preschool Psychological report is denied at stage 1