R. v. Boudreau

R. v. Boudreau

Leave to cross‑examine under s.9(2) was refused because the prosecution failed to properly prepare, disclose and provide victim support or seek an adjournment, and permitting cross‑examination under those circumstances would be unfair to the complainant and risk re‑victimization; accordingly the ends of justice were not served by granting the application.

Citation
2015 NSPC 84
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Dale Rodney Boudreau
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Summary Assault (s.266 Criminal Code) / Trial; Voir Dire Application Under S.9(2) Canada Evidence Act to Permit Own‑witness Cross‑examination
Outcome
Application to cross‑examine under s.9(2) Canada Evidence Act denied; leave refused.
Legal Topics
Section 9(2) Canada Evidence Act, Own‑witness Cross‑examination, Recantation, Prosecutorial Disclosure and Witness Preparation, Adjournment and Victim Support, Fairness and Re‑victimization
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Family Violence Procedural Law Victims' Rights Section 9(2) Canada Evidence Act Own‑witness Cross‑examination Recantation +3 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Dale Rodney Boudreau

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Summary Assault (s.266 Criminal Code) / Trial; Voir Dire Application Under S.9(2) Canada Evidence Act to Permit Own‑witness Cross‑examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted under s.9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross‑examine the complainant on a prior recorded statement
  2. 2 Whether the ends of justice are served by allowing cross‑examination in circumstances of alleged recantation
  3. 3 Whether prosecutorial conduct (failure to adequately prepare, disclose or refer to victim services) renders proposed cross‑examination unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to cross‑examine under s.9(2) was refused because the prosecution failed to properly prepare, disclose and provide victim support or seek an adjournment, and permitting cross‑examination under those circumstances would be unfair to the complainant and risk re‑victimization; accordingly the ends of justice were not served by granting the application.

Court Disposition

Application to cross‑examine under s.9(2) Canada Evidence Act denied; leave refused.

Orders

  • Declined to grant leave to the prosecution to cross‑examine the complainant on her video‑recorded statement under section 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.