R. v. T.W.R.

R. v. T.W.R.

ss.276–276.1 do not apply because the proposed evidence concerns the fact of a prior allegation and recantation against a third party, not evidence that the complainant engaged in extrinsic sexual activity; Canada Evidence Act ss.10–11 do not admit the evidence because no prior recorded statement and no inconsistent present testimony; common‑law rules bar admission of the evidence for the purpose of attacking credibility because it is collateral, of low probative value and highly prejudicial and would invite stereotypical reasoning — however the evidence is admissible narrowly and solely to help establish the timing of the alleged events (to determine the accused's age at the material time).

Citation
2018 NSPC 33
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused / Young Person: T.W.R.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Sexual Assault With Youth Election Considerations / Pre Trial Admissibility Hearing (decision Regarding Admissibility of Evidence)
Outcome
Partial: ss.276–276.4 inapplicable to the proposed subject‑matter; proposed evidence and witnesses disallowed to challenge complainant credibility but permitted in a narrowly confined way to establish timing/age.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, S.276 Criminal Code, Cross Examination, Recanted Allegation, Collateral Fact Rule, Materiality and Relevance, Youth Sentencing Implications
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Youth Justice Sexual Offences Publication Restrictions Admissibility of Evidence S.276 Criminal Code Cross Examination +4 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

T.W.R.

Accused / Young Person

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Sexual Assault With Youth Election Considerations / Pre Trial Admissibility Hearing (decision Regarding Admissibility of Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss.276–276.1 Criminal Code apply to a recanted allegation about a third party
  2. 2 Whether Canada Evidence Act ss.10–11 permit cross-examination or admission of the alleged prior accusation/recantation
  3. 3 Whether common‑law collateral fact rule and rules on relevance/materiality/admissibility bar extrinsic evidence introduced for impeachment

Ratio Decidendi

ss.276–276.1 do not apply because the proposed evidence concerns the fact of a prior allegation and recantation against a third party, not evidence that the complainant engaged in extrinsic sexual activity; Canada Evidence Act ss.10–11 do not admit the evidence because no prior recorded statement and no inconsistent present testimony; common‑law rules bar admission of the evidence for the purpose of attacking credibility because it is collateral, of low probative value and highly prejudicial and would invite stereotypical reasoning — however the evidence is admissible narrowly and solely to help establish the timing of the alleged events (to determine the accused's age at the material time).

Court Disposition

Partial: ss.276–276.4 inapplicable to the proposed subject‑matter; proposed evidence and witnesses disallowed to challenge complainant credibility but permitted in a narrowly confined way to establish timing/age.

Orders

  • Any information that might identify the complainant shall not be published or broadcast — s.486.4 Criminal Code
  • No publication identifying a young person dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act — s.110 YCJA