The appellant was convicted of sexual assault at trial following proceedings in Alberta.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the appellant argued that the trial judge engaged in stereotypical reasoning in assessing the accused's evidence and erred by failing to conduct a voir dire under s. 276 of the Criminal Code regarding the complainant's evidence of a past sexual relationship with the appellant.
A majority of the Court held that the trial judge did not engage in stereotypical reasoning, and that any inferential error was harmless in light of the reasons as a whole.
The majority further held that the failure to conduct a s. 276 voir dire did not give rise to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The appeal was dismissed, with Côté J. dissenting on the ground that the curative proviso should not have been applied.
