BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND SUMMARY OF DECISION

THE SECTION 690 APPLICATION OF WILFRED BEAULIEU

On May 7, 1992, a judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta convicted Wilfred Beaulieu of two counts of sexual assault, contrary to section 271(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Beaulieu was convicted of sexually assaulting two women between 8:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on February 2, 1992.

Mr. Beaulieu was sentenced to three and one-half years imprisonment for his assault upon one woman and six months imprisonment, to be served concurrently, for his conviction in the second instance. The sentences were to be served consecutively to any other period of incarceration, and began to run on January 3, 1994.

Mr. Beaulieu appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal. On January 4, 1993, the Court dismissed the appeal from both convictions. The Court's Memorandum of Judgment was released on March 15, 1993. Mr. Beaulieu did not seek leave to appeal the Court's decision.

On August 31, 1994, Mr. Beaulieu applied for a section 690 Criminal Code review of his convictions, submitting a Brief in support of his application. Mr. Beaulieu requested a new trial or appeal, basing his application on several grounds. One ground concerned new information relating to the reliability of the testimony of one complainant, including the complainant's medical records.

The Minister of Justice reviewed the complainant's medical records only after obtaining her written consent to the release of those records. Before seeking her approval for the release of the records, his representative described the section 690 process to her and fully explained the potential uses that could be made of those records, including the possibilities that the information may become public.

A second ground for the application involved a witness's recantation of a portion of her original testimony. Two of three issues now raised by Mr. Beaulieu, namely, the recanted evidence of a witness and the conduct of the police and Crown, neither individually nor collectively, signal that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred. However, with respect to the third issue, a court will now be asked to reconsider the reliability of the testimony of one of the complainants. This is central to the conviction of Mr. Beaulieu in view of new information that is now available, but was not at the time of the conviction or appeal. (The complainant had been treated for several years for a psychiatric disorder.)

In the event that the Court concludes that the new information would be admissible on an appeal, the Minister hereby respectfully refers to the Court of Appeal of Alberta, pursuant to section 690(b) of the Criminal Code to determine the case as if it were an appeal by Mr. Beaulieu on the issue of the fresh evidence.