R. v. D. (W.C.)

R. v. D. (W.C.)

The court ordered limited production: specific excerpts from the complainant's manuscript (pages referenced in the in‑camera inventory at pp. 8, 23 and 50) and a single June 10, 2012 hospital progress note (p.29), because those passages were found likely relevant and necessary for the accused to make full answer and defence; the DCS file and most counselling records were not produced because they lacked probative detail, did not identify the accused, and the deleterious effects and privacy interests outweighed any tenuous probative value; production is limited to copies, edited as necessary, with strict nondisclosure and no further copying absent court permission.

Citation
2020 NSSC 392
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused / Applicant: W.C.D.; Complainant / Victim: Complainant (redacted)
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Historical Sexual Offences / Voir Dire (stage Two) Under S.278.3 Criminal Code
Outcome
Partial disclosure granted; majority of third‑party files withheld.
Legal Topics
S.278.3 Disclosure Process, Stage One and Stage Two Test, Probative Value of Third Party Records, Manuscript/book Production, Counselling Records, Publication Ban, Balancing Right to Full Answer and Defence Vs Complainant Privacy
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Sexual Offences Privacy Third Party Records Disclosure S.278.3 Disclosure Process Stage One and Stage Two Test Probative Value of Third Party Records +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

W.C.D.

Accused / Applicant

Complainant (redacted)

Complainant / Victim

Procedural Posture

Criminal Historical Sexual Offences / Voir Dire (stage Two) Under S.278.3 Criminal Code

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether third-party records and a complainant manuscript are 'likely relevant' to issues at trial
  2. 2 Whether production of records is 'necessary in the interests of justice' under s.278.3
  3. 3 Whether Department of Community Services (DCS) and counselling records have probative value regarding allegations or complainant credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered limited production: specific excerpts from the complainant's manuscript (pages referenced in the in‑camera inventory at pp. 8, 23 and 50) and a single June 10, 2012 hospital progress note (p.29), because those passages were found likely relevant and necessary for the accused to make full answer and defence; the DCS file and most counselling records were not produced because they lacked probative detail, did not identify the accused, and the deleterious effects and privacy interests outweighed any tenuous probative value; production is limited to copies, edited as necessary, with strict nondisclosure and no further copying absent court permission.

Court Disposition

Partial disclosure granted; majority of third‑party files withheld.

Orders

  • Produce copies of specified edited excerpts from the complainant's manuscript (inventory references: pages 8, 23 and 50) to the Applicant, Crown and Complainant counsel
  • Produce a copy of the June 10, 2012 progress note from [redacted] Hospital (inventory p.29) to the Applicant, Crown and Complainant counsel and counsel for the Hospital