EP#177 | Roadblocks Before the Trial Even Begins

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord

In this episode, Diana and Joseph tackle the growing problem of complainant counsel overstepping their legislated role in Canadian sexual assault pretrial motions. Using a recent case as a springboard carefully discussed without breaching publication bans they break down how legislative amendments since 2018, upheld in R. v. J.J., have created room for complainant counsel to make arguments that go beyond protecting privacy interests. They highlight troubling examples: offering speculative interpretations of evidence, advancing generalized “myth” arguments to exclude defence material, and even influencing Crown cross-examinations despite having no standing to do so. The discussion covers case law like Kinnamore and Seaboyer, the dangers of allowing reverse myth reasoning, and the need for clear, national guidelines to restrict complainant counsel to their intended scope. This candid conversation blends legal analysis, war stories from the courtroom, and a call for judicial intervention to preserve fairness in sexual assault trials