During a jury trial for multiple sexual assault charges involving several complainants from the same household, the Crown applied for permission to use the evidence of each complainant as similar act evidence in relation to the counts involving the others.
The court applied the framework from Supreme Court jurisprudence governing admissibility of disreputable conduct evidence.
The judge found the allegations shared significant similarities demonstrating a pattern of conduct in a parental authority context and rejected the defence argument that the evidence was tainted by collusion.
Although discussions among complainants created an air of reality to the collusion allegation, the Crown established on a balance of probabilities that the accounts were not concocted.
The probative value of the similar act evidence was found to outweigh the limited prejudice.
