R. v. Shearing

Cult leader Ivon Shearing was charged with multiple sexual offences against 11 complainants who’d lived in the cult’s group home. One of the complainants had kept a diary which covered part of the period where she’d alleged sexual abuse by Mr. Shearing. The diary had been left at the group home by the complainant and found by another resident nearly twenty years later.

At trial, the defence wished to use the diary while cross-examining the complainant in two ways: first, by showing inconsistencies between her testimony and her diary entries, and second, by showing the absence of any entry chronicling physical or sexual abuse. The trial judge permitted the first line of questioning only, engaging in a simple “balancing of interests” test that saw the complainants’ privacy interests outweigh the accused’s right to full answer and defence. Mr. Shearing was convicted on this count and other counts in relation to other complainants.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Ontario Court of Appeal, Mr. Shearing argued that the trial judge erred in limiting defence counsel’s cross-examination.

A majority of the Supreme Court agreed and ordered a new trial with respect to the complainants’ allegations.

The Intervenor, Criminal Lawyers’ Association, was represented by Frank Addario.

Click here to read this criminal law case.