Dawne P. Way

The applicant, Marcus Bryan, facing charges including human trafficking, sought a Stage 2 ruling under s. 276 of the Criminal Code regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning the complainant's prior sexual activity.

The court granted the application in part, allowing limited questioning on the complainant's prior and ongoing involvement in sex work, her use of advertising websites, earnings, and work for other individuals, as well as the nature and conclusion of her relationship with the applicant.

The court found this evidence relevant to the defence narrative and to challenge the complainant's credibility, provided it did not engage the "twin myths" and had significant probative value.

The accused, Matthew Hamilton, brought an application under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence from the complainant's Instagram account and Instagram messages in a sexual assault trial.

Hamilton argued the evidence was relevant to his defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent and to the complainant's credibility, as it suggested a consensual paid sexual encounter rather than an iPhone sale.

The court found the Instagram account evidence lacked sufficient precision for admissibility at this stage but allowed for further submissions.

The Instagram messages from the date of the alleged offence were deemed admissible as they related to the core subject matter and contradicted the complainant's initial statement, thus being directly relevant to her credibility.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a s. 7 Charter application for disclosure of the complainant's unrelated police occurrence reports, arguing potential relevance to her credibility and motive to fabricate.

The Crown opposed, asserting that such records fall under the Mills regime (Criminal Code ss. 278.1-278.92) and lacked established relevance.

The court granted the complainant standing to make submissions on the disclosure application.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the accused's disclosure application, finding that the asserted basis for relevance was speculative and stereotypical, and did not establish a sufficient logical nexus between the requested information and the issues at trial, such as consent or motive to fabricate.

The accused, charged with a 1998 sexual assault identified via a 2014 DNA hit, brought a pre-trial motion under the Mills regime seeking production of the complainant's OHIP billing records, police occurrence reports, and particulars of her testimony in a prior unrelated sexual assault trial.

The court dismissed the requests for the OHIP and police records, finding them overly broad, irrelevant, and an unjustified intrusion into the complainant's privacy.

However, the court ordered the Crown to provide particulars of the time and place of the complainant's prior public testimony, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in such information.