The Crown sought leave to adduce evidence of discreditable conduct, both from one count to another and extrinsic to the indictment, in a sexual assault case.
The central issue was whether the complainant's consent was vitiated by the accused's breach of his position of authority.
The court applied the similar fact evidence test, requiring a sufficient nexus and probative value outweighing prejudice.
The application was dismissed, as the court found insufficient commonality and nexus between the proposed evidence (from another employee and financial irregularities) and the sexual assault charge, particularly regarding the complainant's stated reason for consent and lack of direct threats.