The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of criminal harassment.
At trial, the judge excluded evidence of six prior incidents of discreditable conduct by the respondent toward the complainant, finding the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value under the Handy framework.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge misapprehended the probative value of the evidence.
The prior conduct was highly relevant to establishing the context of the harassment, the reasonableness of the complainant's fear, and the respondent's knowledge or recklessness regarding that fear.
