Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses whether someone who couldn’t testify at a trial, such as a vulnerable person, should be nevertheless able to intervene to provide context to proceedings.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week, and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
For more Kyla Lee, follow her on Twitter, or check out her website!
MGW was a complainant in a sexual assault case. She lived in a group home and had a number of disabilities which prevented her form testifying at trial.
Valentine Ngoddy was accused of and convicted of sexually assaulting her. But because the victim could not testify at trial, the court admitted an out of court statement she had made for the truth of its contents following an exception to the hearsay rule.
Mr. Ngoddy appealed. And on appeal, MGW argued she should have intervenor status at the appeal. An intervenor is someone who provides context to the court. MGW wasn’t able to participate in the trial itself in a way that other complainants normally would.
The question is whether or not these vulnerable complainants should have participatory rights through the mechanism of acting as intervenors?