Victims Law Library

The charge against the accuseds was murder which occurred in the context of a criminal underworld. The Crown brought an application pursuant to section 486.5(1) of the Criminal Code requesting that seven civilians who will be called as Crown witnesses have their identity protected. The court reviewed the long and violent history of the accused murderers and was prepared to conclude that the two accused remained a danger to society or to anyone that crossed them. However, the court noted that it would require information relating to a risk of specific harm relating to the civilian witnesses before an order protecting could be made. The court recognized the very strong interest in the open-court system and determined that evidence or reliable information concerning the witnesses would have to demonstrate a real and substantial risk before such an order could be justified.

In this case, even in the absence of a community impact statement, the judge considered that he had to take into account the impact on the community in accordance with the amendments made to the sentencing factors by the CVBR. The court ruled as follows on this point: In 2015, Parliament amended the Criminal Code to include the Canadian Victims' Bill of Rights. S.C. 2015, c. 13, Bill C-32. The fundamental objective of sentencing was amended to include the protection of society. Section 718 of the Criminal Code now includes a community component and requires courts to consider as an objective of sentencing fair penalties that (a) denounce the unlawful conduct and the harm caused to victims or the community by that unlawful conduct, and (e) promote offenders' sense of responsibility and recognition of the harm caused to victims or the community.

The case concerns a disclosure request made by the accused regarding the contact details of several witnesses to a three-vehicle collision that led to impaired driving charges. Although the Crown acknowledged the existence of a general obligation to disclose information, it suggested that this obligation should be interpreted in light of the CVBR and, in particular, the witnesses' interests in confidentiality and safety. The Court first noted that not all witnesses met the definition of victim in the CVBR. The ‘protection’ provided for in the CVBR did not necessarily require the protection of identity and privacy. Instead, the CVBR required that the victim's concerns be taken into consideration. The court ordered the disclosure of contact information but also ordered the defence counsel to inform potential witnesses that their contact information had been provided by court order but that they were not required to submit to an interview with the defence counsel.

The defendant, in a trial for the second-degree murder of his wife, requested that the trial be dismissed during jury deliberations, arguing that the prosecution had failed to disclose the compensation claims of two prosecution witnesses before the end of the trial. The defence suggested that it would have approached these victims differently if it had known that they intended to seek compensation. The court heard testimony from the director of the Edmonton Victim Services Unit (the ‘VSU’). First, the court determined that the VSU was not an extension of the police and that, therefore, the prosecution did not have the documents in its possession prior to the indictment. The court then determined that the compensation claims were similar to VIS and that the details of the documents should not be disclosed before the trial for reasons of public policy, unless exceptional circumstances made their disclosure necessary.

This case involved a charge of sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm. The accused in the case had previously been the victim of a criminal proceeding resulting in a finding of guilt of the same person who was the alleged victim in the current case. The accused applied for access to third-party records in the hands of various parties including health facilities, telephone companies, police services records and probation officer records. The court noted the unusual feature of this case that the accused had previously been the victim of the current victim and made a comment with respect to the informational rights of the accused. The court went on grant access to some materials that it determined were relevant and refused others which were not relevant or where the privacy interest of the current victim outweighed the relevance. The court order contained provisions limiting use and disclosure of the information.

The accused faced numerous charges of sexual offences against his former partner's daughter. The Crown sought permission for the victim to testify in the presence of a support person and to testify outside the courtroom, in accordance with sections 486.1(2) and 486.2(2). The court noted that the provisions allowing for the presence of a ‘support person’ and testimony ‘outside the courtroom’ were intended to facilitate the presentation of a ‘complete and truthful account’ by the witness and to promote ‘the interests of the proper administration of justice.’ According to the court, the proper administration of justice includes both the right of accused persons to a full response and defence and the rights and benefits of witnesses, including encouragement to report offences and the participation of victims in the criminal justice system. It authorised both the orders relating to a support person and testimony outside the courtroom.

The accuseds were charged with a home invasion robbery. The Crown requested an order allowing the victim to provide his evidence from a courthouse in British Columbia via video link and an order that the cross-examination of the victim be conducted by defence counsel from outside the courtroom. The defence did not oppose the testimony by video link but wanted to be in the same room as the victim to conduct their cross-examination. In this case, the victim clearly had serious mental health problems. The court ordered that the victim be permitted to provide evidence via video link, but determined that it was not necessary to make an order with respect to defence counsel’s presence inside or outside the courtroom unless a further application was made with respect to that issue.

In this case, the accused was charged with assault and intended to represent himself. The victim was living in a common-law relationship with the accused. The Crown sought an order under section 486.3 of the Criminal Code that the court appoint counsel so that the victim would not be cross-examined by the accused himself. The Crown based its request on the fact that the victim “might be too frightened by the defendant during cross-examination and not be able to give a full and true account of the alleged offence”. The Court noted that there was very little evidence to support this allegation. The Court recognized society's interest in the denunciation of crimes and the victim's participation in the criminal justice process, but concluded that the evidence presented did not establish the need to appoint a lawyer.

The accused has been charged with the first degree murder of Wesley Hallam. In the case, the crown agreed to accept a plea of manslaughter and indecent interference with human remains by dismembrement rather than the original charges of first degree murder and offering an indignity to a dead body. The court did enquire as to whether the victims had been informed of plea bargain. In this regard, it emphasizes in paragraph 7 that « Considering that the offenders had originally been charged with first degree murder and were now pleading guilty to manslaughter pursuant to the replacement indictment, the court queried the Crown regarding whether reasonable steps had been taken to inform the victims of the Crown’s altered intention and to which the Crown responded in the affirmative..."

The stepfather of the complainant was facing charges relating to sexual offences against his stepdaughter. The accused sought records relating to counselling with respect to the complainant and her mother, alleging that they would be relevant to credibility. The court reviewed the Mills regime and the interpretive guidance provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in the decision of R. v. Mills. The court also specifically referred to the preamble of Bill C-46, which recognized the Charter rights of women and children, and quoted part of the preamble. The court rejected the request, concluding that the requested files were not likely to be relevant of the trial or necessary in the interests of justice. The decision was based on respect for the privacy rights of witnesses and complainants as well as the lack of specific evidence demonstrating the relevance of the files to the defendant’s defense.