R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), (1995) 191 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: December 14, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 191 N.R. 1 (SCC);1995 CanLII 51 (SCC);130 DLR (4th) 235;[1996] 2 WWR 153;103 CCC (3d) 1;44 CR (4th) 1;191 NR 1;68 BCAC 1;[1995] CarswellBC 1098;AZ-96111001;EYB 1995-67073;JE 96-64;[1995] SCJ No 98 (QL);112 WAC 1;[1995] ACS no 98;29 WCB (2d) 152;33 CRR (2d) 1

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.) (1995), 191 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Hubert Patrick O'Connor (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General for Ontario, Aboriginal Women's Council, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, Disabled Women's Network of Canada, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Canadian Mental Health Association and Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law (intervenors)

(24114)

Indexed As: R. v. O'Connor (H.P.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

December 14, 1995.

Summary:

The accused priest was charged with two counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault. The trial judge ordered a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, because the Crown failed to make timely disclosure of information (including prior statements by several complainants) and because the Crown could not assure the trial judge that full disclosure of all such information had been made. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 42 B.C.A.C. 105; 67 W.A.C. 105, allowed the appeal, set aside the stay of proceedings and ordered a new trial. The court briefly touched on the law and procedures applicable to an application for pretrial production of medical records of potential witnesses which were not in the Crown's possession. In a subsequent deci­sion, reported 43 B.C.A.C. 70; 69 W.A.C. 70, the court provided guidelines for the disclosure of such information. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Lamer, C.J.C., Sopinka and Major, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expecta­tion of privacy - The Supreme Court of Canada, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., discussed the balancing of the rights of a sexual assault complainant to privacy respecting psychiatric, counselling or medical records and the accused's right to those records to permit him to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 71 to 98.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., stated that a stay of proceedings was appropriate under s. 24(1) of the Charter where "(1) the prejudice caused by the abuse in ques­tion will be manifested, perpetuated or aggravated through the conduct of the trial, or by its outcome; and (2) no other remedy is reasonably capable of removing that prejudice. ... A stay of proceedings is a last resort , to be taken when all other acceptable avenues of protecting the ac­cused's right to full answer and defence are exhausted." - See paragraphs 40, 42.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., stated that "while a finding of flagrant and inten­tional Crown misconduct may make it significantly more likely that a stay of proceedings will be warranted, it does not follow that a demonstration of mala fides on the part of the Crown is a necessary precondition to such a finding." - See 2paragraph 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., stated that "where life, liberty or security of the person is engaged in a judicial proceeding, and it is proved on a balance of probabili­ties that the Crown's failure to make proper disclosure to the defence has impaired the accused's ability to make full answer and defence, a violation of s. 7 will have been made out. In such circum­stances, the court must fashion a just and appropriate remedy, pursuant to s. 24(1). Although the remedy for such a violation will typically be a disclosure order and adjournment, there may be some extreme cases where the prejudice to the accused's ability to make full answer and defence or to the integrity of the justice system is irremediable. In those 'clearest of cases', a stay of proceedings will be appropriate." - See paragraph 48.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Criminal Law - Topic 255 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 128

Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 255 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 251

Abuse of process - General principles - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that "the common law doctrine of abuse of process continues to exist quite independently of s. 7 of the Charter" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the common law abuse of process was subsumed in the Charter - The court stated, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., that "the only instances in which there may be a need to maintain any type of distinction between the two regimes will be those instances in which the Charter, for some reason, does not apply yet where the cir­cumstances nevertheless point to an abuse of the court's process. ... As a general rule, however, there is no utility in maintaining two distinct approaches to abusive con­duct." - See paragraphs 24 to 37.

Criminal Law - Topic 251

Abuse of process - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that "there is a residual discretion in a trial court judge to stay proceedings where compelling an accused to stand trial would violate those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community's sense of fair play and decency and to prevent the abuse of the court's process through oppressive and vexatious proceed­ings" - A stay of proceedings was a reme­dy available only in the "clearest of cases" - See paragraph 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 255

Abuse of process - Power of court - Re prevention and remedies - A trial judge stayed proceedings because the Crown's conduct in initially failing to comply with a court order to disclose information and the failure to disclose all documents con­stituted an abuse of process and denied the accused's right to make full answer and defence - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the setting aside of the stay - The court stated that "although the Crown's conduct was shoddy and inappropriate, the non-disclosure cannot be said to have violated the accused's right to full answer and defence. ... Without any inquiry into the materiality of the non-disclosed infor­mation, it was, therefore, impossible for the trial judge to conclude that the non-disclosure had, on the balance of prob­abili­ties, prejudiced the accused's ability to make full answer and defence" - This was not one of those "clearest of cases" jus­tifying the ultimate remedy of a stay - See paragraphs 49 to 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the mere existence of therapeutic records is insuf­ficient to establish the relevance of those records to the defence. However, we are of the opinion that the relevance of such records must be presumed where the records are in the possession of the Crown" - See paragraph 173.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the R. v. Stinchcombe balancing approach to Crown disclosure applied equally to the produc­tion of information in the hands of third parties, subject to modification to resolve the competing claims of a complainant's constitutional privacy rights and the ac­cused's right to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 176 to 183.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the procedure for the production of private records in the hands of third parties - The accused must establish that the records are "likely to be relevant" - It was not an evidential burden requiring evidence and a voir dire in every case - The accused must make a formal written application supported by an affi­davit setting out the specific grounds for production - Notice must be given to third parties in possession and all persons hav­ing a privacy interest in the information - The custodian and the records are to be subpoenaed - The application was to be made to the trial judge, but may be brought before the jury was empanelled at the time when other motions were made - See paragraphs 176 to 183.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the duty of a trial judge in determining whether to order the production of relevant therapeutic records to an accused, where the records were in the possession of a third party - The court stated that the trial judge "must examine and weigh the salutary and del­eterious effects of a production order and determine whether a nonproduction order would constitute a reasonable limit on the ability of the accused to make full answer and defence" - The court listed factors to be considered in balancing the com­plainant's privacy interests and the ac­cused's right to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 191 to 195.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Crown has an ethical and constitutional obligation to disclose to the accused all information in its possession or control, subject to a discretion to refuse disclosure of clearly irrelevant or privileged information - Although therapeutic records of com­plainants attracted a stronger privacy in­terest than many other types of infor­mation, once the records were in the Crown's possession, the duty to disclose is unaffected by the confidential nature of the records - Any privilege was waived - The court stated that the complainant's waiver must be "fully informed" - The Crown must explain that the records, once turned over to the Crown, must be disclosed to the accused if they are relevant - See paragraphs 164 to 172.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that an accused was entitled to production of a com­plainant's therapeutic records in the hands of third parties if "there is a reasonable possibility that the information is logically probative to an issue at trial or the com­petence of a witness to testif y" - While "likely relevant" is a significant burden "it should not be interpreted as an onerous burden upon the accused" - At this threshold stage of relevance, issues of privacy and admissibility were not con­siderations -"A relevance threshold ... is simply a requirement to prevent the defence from engaging in 'speculative, fanciful, disrup­tive, unmeritorious, ob­structive and time-consuming' requests for production" - The court stated that "there is a possibility of materiality where there is a 'reasonably close temporal connection between' the creation of the records and the date of the alleged commission of the offence ... or in the case of historical events ... a close temporal connection between the creation of the records and the decision to bring charges against the accused" - See para­graphs 183 to 190.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the relevance of a complainant's therapeutic records - The court listed, by way of illustration, the following types of information that may be relevant: (1) information respecting the unfolding of events underlying the com­plaint; (2) information revealing the use of therapy influencing the complainant's memory of the alleged events; and (3) information bearing on the complainant's credibility, including testimonial factors such as the quality of their perception of events at the time of the offence and their memory since - The court disagreed "that therapeutic records will only be relevant to the defence in rare cases" - See para­graphs 183 to 190.

Criminal Law - Topic 691

Sexual offences - Evidence - Medical records of complainant - The Supreme Court of Canada, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., stated that "the use of State power to compel production of private records will be justified in a free and democratic society when the following criteria are applied. First, production should only be granted when it is shown that the accused cannot obtain the information sought by any other reasonably available and ef­fective alternative means. Second, produc­tion which infringes upon a right to pri­vacy must be as limited as reasonably possible to fulfil the right to make full answer and defence. Third, arguments urging production must rest upon permis­sible chains of reasoning, rather than upon discriminatory assumptions and stereo­types. Finally, there must be a proportionality between the salutary effects of production on the accused's right to make full answer and defence as compared with the deleterious effects on the party whose private records are being produced." - See paragraph 97.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - The Supreme Court of Canada, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., stated that "a challenge based on non-disclosure will generally require a showing of actual prejudice to the accused's ability to make full answer and defence. ... there is no autonomous 'right' to disclosure in the Charter" - See paragraph 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See third Civil Rights - Topic 8374 , Criminal Law - Topic 255 and third and fifth Criminal Law - Topic 691 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5366

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Psychiatric or counselling records - [See all Criminal Law - Topic 691 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5380

Evidence - Witnesses - Documents and reports - Medical records of witness - [See all Criminal Law - Topic 691 ].

Medicine - Topic 3092

Relation with patient - Charts and records - Confidentiality - Waiver of - [See fifth Criminal Law - Topic 691 ].

Cases Noticed:

L.L.A. v. Beharriell (1995), 190 N.R. 329 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1, appld. [para. 19].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 47 C.R.(3d) 193, appld. [para. 24].

R. v. Keyowski, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 657; 83 N.R. 296; 65 Sask.R. 122; 32 C.R.R. 269; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 62 C.R.(3d) 349; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 577; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 67 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 70 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 24].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask.R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 26].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Potvin (R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 880; 155 N.R. 241; 66 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 27].

Rodriquez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326; 102 N.R. 321; 103 A.R. 321; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 577; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 273; 45 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Endicott, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 155; 156 N.R. 321; 141 A.R. 353; 46 W.A.C. 353, refd to. [para. 30].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Levogiannis, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 475; 160 N.R. 371; 67 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Xenos (J.) (1991), 43 Q.A.C. 212; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 362 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Keyowski (1986), 49 Sask.R. 64; 28 C.C.C.(3d) 553 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Chaplin (D.A.) et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 727; 178 N.R. 118; 162 A.R. 272; 83 W.A.C. 272, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Gingras (1992), 120 A.R. 300; 8 W.A.C. 300; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 74].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 75].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 75].

McInerney v. MacDonald, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 138; 137 N.R. 35; 126 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 317 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 75].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 76].

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), 408 U.S. 564 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 79].

Roe v. Wade (1973), 410 U.S. 113 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Plant (R.S.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281; 157 N.R. 321; 145 A.R. 104; 55 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 83].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Gratton, [1987] O.J. No. 1984 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Callaghan, [1993] O.J. No. 2013 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Barbosa (1994), 92 C.C.C.(3d) 131 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 93].

Carey v. Ontario, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637; 72 N.R. 81; 20 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Dersch (W.W.) et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1505; 116 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Durette et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 469; 163 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 1; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 106].

Baron v. Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Thompson et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1111; 114 N.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 225; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 481; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 321; 80 C.R.(3d) 129; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 596; 50 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Sanelli, Duarte and Fasciano, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 30; 103 N.R. 86; 37 O.A.C. 322, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. K.(V.) (1991), 4 C.R.(4th) 338; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

Descôteaux et Centre Communautaire Juridique de Montréal v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 590, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. B.C. and K.G. (1993), 62 O.A.C. 13; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 467 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Davison (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 424 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

R. v. Doyle, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 597; 9 N.R. 285; 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 17 A.P.R. 45, refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. Caccamo, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 786; 4 N.R. 133, refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Skogman, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 93; 54 N.R. 34; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 52; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 41 C.R.(3d) 1; 9 Admin. L.R. 153; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Arviv (1985), 8 O.A.C. 92; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Darby, [1994] B.C.J. No. 814 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 136].

R. v. Patterson, [1970] S.C.R. 409, refd to. [para. 139].

R. v. Hislop (1983), 7 C.C.C.(3d) 240 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 139].

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. R.J.S., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 451; 177 N.R. 81; 78 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 147].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch and Levitt, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3; 180 N.R. 241; 60 B.C.A.C. 1; 99 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 147].

R. v. Harrer (H.M.) (1995), 186 N.R. 329 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 155].

R. v. R.(L.) (1995), 39 C.R.(4th) 390 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 183].

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341, refd to. [para. 185].

R. v. Preston, [1993] 4 All E.R. 638 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 185].

R. v. Ross (K.) (1993), 119 N.S.R.(2d) 177; 330 A.P.R. 177; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Ross (K.) (1993), 121 N.S.R.(2d) 242; 335 A.P.R. 242; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 234 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 187].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 66 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 188].

R. v. R.S. (1985), 19 C.C.C.(3d) 115 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Norman (D.L.) (1993), 68 O.A.C. 22; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Hedstrom (1991), 63 C.C.C.(3d) 261 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

Toohey v. Metropolitan Police Commis­sioner, [1965] 1 All E.R. 506 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Ryan (1991), 107 N.S.R.(2d) 357; 290 A.P.R. 357; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 193].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 17]; sect. 24(1) [para. 22].

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. c. C-12, sect. 5 [para. 81].

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 35, art. 36 [para. 81].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 581 [para. 8].

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free­doms, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, art. 8 [para. 79].

International Covenant on Civil and Politi­cal Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, art. 17 [para. 79].

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), G.A. Res. 217 A (III), art. 17, p. 71 [para. 79].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Badgley Report - see Canada, Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths, Sexual Offences Against Children: Report of the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths.

Canada, Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths, Sexual Offences Against Children: Report of the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youths (Badgley Report) (1984), vol. 1, generally [para. 85].

Choo, A.L.-T., Halting Criminal Prosecu­tions: The Abuse of Process Doctrine Revisited, [1995] Crim L.R. 864, p. 865 [para. 27].

Cross on Evidence (7th Ed. 1990), p. 51 [para. 107].

Firsten, Temi, An Exploration of the Role of Physical and Sexual Abuse for Psychiatrically Institutionalized Women (1990), generally [para. 85].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 17, p. 7, para. 5 [para. 107].

Paciocco, David M., The Stay of Proceed­ings as a Remedy in Criminal Cases: Abusing the Abuse of Process Concept (1991), 15 Crim. L.J. 315, p. 331 [para. 27].

Stuesser, Lee, Abuse of Process: The Need to Reconsider (1994), 29 C.R.(4th) 92, p. 99 [para. 31].

Stuesser, Lee, Reconciling Disclosure and Privilege (1994), 30 C.R.(4th) 67, pp. 71, 72 [para. 120].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (3rd Ed. 1940), p. 655, para. 9 [para. 107].

Counsel:

Christopher M. Considine, Daniel R. Mc­Donagh and David M. Paciocco, for the appellant;

Malcolm D. Macaulay, Q.C., and Andrea Miller, for the respondent;

Robert J. Frater, for the intervenor, Attor­ney General of Canada;

Susan Chapman and Miriam Bloomenfeld, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;

Sharon D. McIvor and Elizabeth J. Shilton, for the intervenors, Aboriginal Women's Council, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, Disabled Women's Network of Canada and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund;

Frances M. Kelly, for the intervenor, Canadian Mental Health Association;

Brian Weagant and Sheena Scott, for the intervenor, Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law.

Solicitors of Record:

Considine & Lawler, Victoria, B.C., for the appellant;

Cardinal Edgar Emberton & Macaulay, Victoria, B.C., for the respondent;

Robert J. Frater, Ottawa, Ont., for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Miriam Bloomenfeld, Janet Gallin and Susan Chapman, Toronto, Ont., for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;

Sharon D. McIvor, Ottawa, Ont., and Elizabeth J. Shilton, Toronto, Ont., for the intervenors, Aboriginal Women's Council, Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, Disabled Women's Network of Canada and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund;

Frances Kelly, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervenor, Canadian Mental Health Association;

Brian Weagant, Toronto, Ont., for the intervenor, Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law;

Elizabeth Bennett, Q.C., Peck Tammen Bennett, Vancouver, B.C., appointed by the Court as amicus curiae.

This appeal was heard on February 1, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official lan­guages on December 14, 1995, when the following opinions were filed:

L'Heureux-Dubé, J. (La Forest and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 152;

McLachlin, J. - see paragraphs 153 to 158;

Cory, J. (Iacobucci, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 159 to 161;

Lamer, C.J.C., and Sopinka, J., dissent­ing - see paragraphs 162 to 196;

Major, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 197 to 254.