R. v. Dick

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Pre Trial Disclosure Application / Case Management Hearing

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the redacted portions of the SANE, ambulance and physician reports are "records" within s.278.1 of the Criminal Code
2. 2 Whether redactions in the SANE report fall within the s.278.1 exemption for records made by persons responsible for the investigation
3. 3 Whether the ambulance and physician records fall within the Mills regime

Ratio Decidendi

The SANE report was prepared by a forensic nurse for the purpose of investigating the alleged sexual assault and therefore the SANE report in its entirety falls within the statutory exemption in s.278.1 (records made by persons responsible for the investigation) and its redactions are to be addressed under Stinchcombe; the ambulance and physician (VIHA) records are medical/treatment records that attract a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore are "records" within s.278.1 to be processed under the Mills regime, but the accused failed to establish likely relevance of those redactions under s.278.5 so production of VIHA redactions is refused; the Crown adequately described the...

Court Disposition

Application partially dismissed: disclosure/production of redactions in VIHA (ambulance and physician) records denied under Mills for lack of likely relevance; SANE report redactions reviewed under Stinchcombe and upheld as irrelevant to trial issues.

Orders

• VIHA records redactions shall remain protected under the ss.278.1-278.91 regime; defence application for production of those redactions under s.278.5 dismissed for lack of likely relevance
• Unredacted SANE report was produced to the court for in camera review and immediately sealed; court finds Crown complied with Stinchcombe and the SANE redactions are not disclosable to the defence as they are irrelevant to trial issues