R v. L.D.

R v. L.D.

The application is denied because the applicant failed to provide case‑specific evidence establishing the educational institution records are likely relevant or necessary in the interests of justice; the asserted relevance is speculative given the police statement already available to the defence and there is no evidentiary basis that the institution or others provided additional or inconsistent statements warranting judicial review under s.278.5.

Citation
2023 NSPC 3
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: L.D.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault (s.271 Criminal Code) / Stage One Judicial Review Application Under S.278 (production for Judicial Review)
Outcome
Application denied.
Legal Topics
S.278 Production of Records, Judicial Review of Third‑party Records, Publication Ban/s.278.9, Likely Relevance Test, Interests of Justice Balancing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Privacy Law Administrative Law S.278 Production of Records Judicial Review of Third‑party Records Publication Ban/s.278.9 Likely Relevance Test +1 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

L.D.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault (s.271 Criminal Code) / Stage One Judicial Review Application Under S.278 (production for Judicial Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether records held by the educational institution qualify as 'records' under s.278.1
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established records are likely relevant to an issue at trial or competence of a witness (s.278.5)
  3. 3 Whether production of the records is necessary in the interests of justice (s.278.5(1)(c) and s.278.5(2) factors)

Ratio Decidendi

The application is denied because the applicant failed to provide case‑specific evidence establishing the educational institution records are likely relevant or necessary in the interests of justice; the asserted relevance is speculative given the police statement already available to the defence and there is no evidentiary basis that the institution or others provided additional or inconsistent statements warranting judicial review under s.278.5.

Court Disposition

Application denied.

Orders

  • Application for production of records for judicial review under s.278.5 denied
  • No order for production of educational institution records to the court for review