On a pre-trial application under ss. 276 and 278.92-278.94 of the Criminal Code, the accused sought to adduce prior-conduct evidence and to classify various defence-held materials as non-records.
The court held the proposed sexual-history evidence did not satisfy s. 276(2), finding it invited impermissible twin-myth reasoning and was not proper rebuttal evidence.
On the record-screening issue, the court applied the J.J. framework and concluded the disputed videos, emails, and photographs did not contain intimate or highly personal information sufficient to engage the statutory regime.
Only police reports were found to be records.
The court also barred Crown use at trial of materials determined to be non-records that surfaced through the defence application for directions.
