On a Crown evidentiary motion in a jury trial for historical sexual offences, the court considered whether prior discreditable conduct evidence concerning physical abuse of a corroborating witness was admissible.
Applying the balancing framework for extrinsic misconduct evidence, the court held that the evidence was relevant and material because it provided necessary context for assessing the witness’s credibility, reliability, fear, and inaction in relation to the complainant.
The probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, particularly with limiting instructions and controlled questioning.
The motion was granted in part, but the Crown was prohibited from leading evidence of severe physical sequellae absent later leave.
