The Crown applied to admit evidence of prior sexual activity in a sexual assault trial.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence's marginal probative value for narrative or explaining the complainant's state of mind did not outweigh its significant prejudicial effect, which included risks of moral prejudice and diverting the trial's focus.
The court emphasized that the proposed evidence was not required for narrative purposes and that the complainant's reaction (remaining silent and motionless) did not require explanation, as such reactions are not unusual in sexual assault cases.
