R. v. Googoo

R. v. Googoo

Applicant failed to meet the s.278.5(1)(b) likely relevance threshold because he relied on prohibited general assertions and provided no case-specific evidence that the therapeutic records or the supplemental document would provide added information or impeachment value not already available; on balancing interests production was not necessary in the interests of justice given the high privacy expectations in counselling records and the prejudicial effect of disclosure; the supplemental document is a third-party record subject to s.278 protections and there was no informed waiver, therefore both production requests were dismissed.

Citation
2022 NSPC 28
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/applicant: Joseph Wayne Morley Googoo; Complainant: A.B.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault (s.271 Criminal Code) / Voir Dire S.278.3 Third Party Records Application (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application dismissed; production of therapeutic records and supplemental document denied.
Legal Topics
Third Party Records, S.278.3 Criminal Code, Therapeutic Records, Likely Relevance, Production of Records, Waiver, Crown Disclosure (stinchcombe)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Privacy Law Procedural Law Third Party Records S.278.3 Criminal Code Therapeutic Records Likely Relevance +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Joseph Wayne Morley Googoo

Accused/applicant

A.B.

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault (s.271 Criminal Code) / Voir Dire S.278.3 Third Party Records Application (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether therapeutic records of the complainant are likely relevant under s.278.5(1)(b) and should be produced to the court for review
  2. 2 Whether the supplemental document prepared by the complainant's social worker is a third-party 'record' under s.278.1 or an investigatory/prosecutorial document exempt from the Mills regime
  3. 3 Whether the applicant satisfied the procedural requirements of s.278.3 and advanced case-specific evidence beyond the assertions prohibited by s.278.3(4)

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to meet the s.278.5(1)(b) likely relevance threshold because he relied on prohibited general assertions and provided no case-specific evidence that the therapeutic records or the supplemental document would provide added information or impeachment value not already available; on balancing interests production was not necessary in the interests of justice given the high privacy expectations in counselling records and the prejudicial effect of disclosure; the supplemental document is a third-party record subject to s.278 protections and there was no informed waiver, therefore both production requests were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; production of therapeutic records and supplemental document denied.

Orders

  • s.278.3 application dismissed; neither the complainant's therapeutic records nor the supplemental document prepared by A.A. are ordered produced to the court for review.