Yes. There are very specific circumstances within the sexual history regime and the private records regimes where a complainant has limited forms of standing. In this case, this would be an amendment to a portion of Bill C-16 that replaces what we call the explicit waiver provision, which is currently in the production regime. When the Crown is in possession of private records, currently under the law, it can produce those records if the complainant waives the application of those protections, essentially. The court will consider admissibility later.
Bill C-16 proposes to reduce delays by changing the explicit waiver power to the new “authority of the produce” power that is in the bill. That was just amended with the change in that language from “disclose” to “produce”. This is the power of the Crown to produce documents to the defence that are in its possession.
This amendment would require that before the complainant can give their permission for certain records to be disclosed to the accused, they would first have to have the opportunity to obtain counsel. That would be a step up from the current existing law, where just a waiver is required. This would actually require counsel first. It would, in theory, lead to potential further delays as a complainant would have to first hire a lawyer, get their advice and then go back to the Crown and answer yes or no for whether they can produce.
The intent of the amendment here is a different balancing of victims' rights versus efficiency.