R v. A.B.

R v. A.B.

The applicant failed to adduce case‑specific evidence that the guidance counsellor created records that are likely relevant to an issue at trial or witness competence; the application was speculative, immediate police involvement made added probative value unlikely, and the complainant's privacy interest outweighed any minimal probative value — accordingly threshold disclosure under s.278.5 was not met and the application is dismissed.

Citation
2022 NSPC 19
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused / Applicant: A.B.; Complainant: Complainant
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Third‑party Records Application Under S.278 of the Criminal Code / Threshold Stage (s.278.5) — Application for Production of Counselling Records for in Camera Judicial Review
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Third‑party Records, S.278 Criminal Code Regime, Disclosure Obligations, Publication Ban, Credibility Impeachment, Likely Relevance Test
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Privacy Law Procedural Law Sexual Offences Third‑party Records S.278 Criminal Code Regime Disclosure Obligations +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

A.B.

Accused / Applicant

Complainant

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Third‑party Records Application Under S.278 of the Criminal Code / Threshold Stage (s.278.5) — Application for Production of Counselling Records for in Camera Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counselling records exist and are likely relevant under s.278.5(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether production for judicial inspection is necessary in the interests of justice under s.278.5(1)(c)
  3. 3 Whether applicant met burden of adducing case‑specific evidence to avoid speculation

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to adduce case‑specific evidence that the guidance counsellor created records that are likely relevant to an issue at trial or witness competence; the application was speculative, immediate police involvement made added probative value unlikely, and the complainant's privacy interest outweighed any minimal probative value — accordingly threshold disclosure under s.278.5 was not met and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for production of counselling records dismissed
  • Order under s.278.9 permitting publication of these reasons subject to removal of identifying information