Article content continued

The Canadian Bar Association also said that giving complainants this power could interfere in the ability of prosecutors to make independent decisions on trial strategy, and that this would all exacerbate trial delays.

With Bill C-51 now in effect, defence lawyers have brought the first wave of Charter challenges — but two different judges ruled the regime is constitutional.

In one case, R. v. A.C. (a publication ban protects the name), lawyer Ian Kasper argued in Ontario Superior Court that Bill C-51 “injects a purely partisan advocate into the merits of the trial.”

These types of offences are particularly plagued by myths and stereotypes

“A criminal trial is solely a contest between the state and the charged individual,” said Kasper’s factum. “Bill C-51’s grant of standing to a complainant to participate in an accused’s trial foundationally alters this constitutional paradigm. It introduces a stranger into the litigation; it provides a witness with a ‘party-like’ status fundamentally altering the dynamic of a fair prosecution.”

Kasper argued the new law means defendants are required to disclose their trial plan to the complainant’s lawyer. “It provides the complainant an opportunity to study the evidence to be led against her, and to correct or adjust her evidence in response to the accused’s disclosed trial plan,” the factum said.

The factum also argued Bill C-51 was vague on how extensively the complainant is entitled to take part in these hearings. “The government’s complete failure to address obvious procedural questions is remarkable,” the factum said.