R v. Lamure – 2018 ONSC 6161 (Parfett):

[4] In the present case, the events that led to the allegation of sexual assault occurred sometime in
the fall of 2013 when the complainant was 17 years of age. The complainant disclosed to her
mother in November 2013 and her mother went to the police in January 2014 to advise them of the
allegation. The police provided the complainant with a form with which to make a written
statement. The complainant wrote the statement in March 2014, but waited until November 2014 to
actually submit her written statement to police.

[5] The file then languished with the police. In the summer of 2015, the complainant contacted
police to ask them what progress had been made on her file. Police then tried to contact the
complainant, but they were unsuccessful. The matter languished again. In December 2015, the
complainant became involved in another, unrelated, police matter. During that investigation, the
complainant again asked police about the progress of the sexual assault file. In February 2016 —
some two and a half years after the alleged misconduct — a videotaped statement was made to
police by the complainant.

[6] The issue in this application is whether in the circumstances of this case, the videotaped
statement was made within a reasonable time after the alleged sexual assault incident.

[7] In assessing whether a videotaped statement was made within a reasonable time, the court must
examine the reasons for the delay and the impact the delay may have had on the complainant’s
ability to accurately recall the events in question. It is important that the concept of reasonableness
in this context is not watered down to the point where the objective of this section — the admission
of reliable statements — is lost.

[8] In the present case, the reasons for the delay fall into two distinct categories: first, the
complainant’s delay and second, the police delay. With respect to the complainant’s delay, I note
that there are many reasons for delayed disclosure and that courts are reluctant to regard delay as
necessarily impacting negatively on the complainant’s credibility or reliability. Each case must be
assessed in its particular context. In the circumstances of this case, I would be reluctant to find the complainant’s delay in reporting the incident to police to be unreasonable. The complainant testified
that it took her a considerable amount of time to write her statement and then decide to submit it to
police. Although the complainant did not specifically indicate why it took her so long, such a delay
is not unusual.

[9] The police delay is more problematic as it seems to have been caused by administrative neglect.
However, once again I am reluctant to find the delay unreasonable when it had nothing to do with
the complainant. She made more than one attempt to inquire about her file and it was the fault of the
police that it took so long to further the investigation.

[10] Consequently, I find that the delay has been adequately explained.
.
.
[12] In all the circumstances, I find that the delay was not unreasonable and the Crown may lead
the videotaped statement as part of the complainant’s evidence. Parenthetically, I note there is a
mid-trial instruction that can be given to the jury with respect to the introduction of this type of
evidence as well as a final instruction. Both will be provided to the jury in this matter.