Sure.
Section 486.2 says in a nutshell that when there's somebody with a disability, or you have a child, for instance, I believe it's what we call a “presumptive” application. I'm not sure what the French equivalent would be. The judge is presumed to grant the order that the person can appear outside the courtroom for testimony. In that case, this is often when we're dealing with sexual offences against children.
I'm just trying to reconcile how, in this instance, Parliament has said we're okay with a child testifying by video, and presumed to testify by video, or a person with a disability. Do these credibility issues apply equally when we as Parliament have already conferred this power, this authority, on a trial judge to allow a child to appear by video in any event?