Justice committee  Yes. The thing currently in proposed subsection 278.92(1) that triggers the application is the defence intent to adduce into evidence. "Adduce” is confusing.

Justice committee  If we change it to “intends to introduce into evidence”, it clarifies what I think was the underlying intent, but I may be wrong about that.

Justice committee  You've also accurately captured the dynamic process of a criminal trial. The problem is that you don't form the intent as defence counsel to introduce a document into evidence. In fact, it is inadmissible in evidence up until the point where the witness, number one, says somethin

Justice committee  Almost. I can't promise I wouldn't bring a constitutional challenge. In my view, the remaining failing that hasn't been addressed by the changes you just went through would be the complexity of these motions. If we can take the three party, the notice requirement, and the separ

Justice committee  The short answer is yes, but it wouldn't go far enough. You would also have to clarify the use to which defence counsel proposed to put the record in order to trigger the application. The first step is clarifying what you mean by a “record”. Narrowing it to the complainant is one

Justice committee  I think replacing “adduce” with “intends to introduce into evidence” would clarify, and it would be consistent with the subsequent application, which is all about assessing admissibility. It doesn't seem to make sense to me to go through the hoops of assessing admissibility when

Justice committee  Yes, absolutely.

Justice committee  It would. I actually don't have any problem with that provision in and of itself apart from the fact that most sexual offence prosecutions don't take seven days, so in most cases you would be taking advantage of the short turnaround if you want to keep the rest of your scheduled

Justice committee  Yes, that's exactly right. The concern the association has is with the rest of the procedural mechanisms. For example, if this arises in a mid-trial application, there's actually a requirement that the complainant have the opportunity to be represented and have standing on these

Justice committee  That's entirely correct. It is a point that's made in the Criminal Lawyers' Association's brief. Right now, section 276 applications that require the defence to vet questions about other sexual activity with the trial judge before trial are a limited exception to the rule that th

Justice committee  Good afternoon. It's an honour to speak before the committee for the first time. I am a criminal lawyer, as is my co-presenter, Mr. Anthony Moustacalis. Mr. Moustacalis is the president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association. I am just a member. My practice is largely focused on s