The accused, Ubaidullah Patel, facing charges including sexual assault, applied under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the complainant, C, about a prior incident where C was allegedly discovered viewing pornographic material and masturbating in a place of worship.
Patel argued this evidence was relevant to show C's motive to fabricate the allegations, fearing disclosure of his own conduct.
The Crown and complainant argued the evidence was irrelevant due to a one-month delay in reporting and potential prejudice.
The court found the evidence relevant to the issue of motive to fabricate and that its significant probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, allowing the cross-examination but limiting it to the specific incident.
