Crown appeal from a jury acquittal on sexual assault and related charges involving a teen complainant.
The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in excluding proposed similar fact evidence arising from the respondent's prior conviction for a sexual assault against another teenage complainant.
The majority held that the trial judge applied the correct Handy framework, that the probative value of the single prior incident was relatively low given the generic similarities and substantial prejudice risk, and that the exclusionary ruling should stand.
Although the jury charge on legal consent was erroneous because the complainant was under 16, the majority found no substantial wrong in light of the acquittal on the properly charged sexual interference count.
A dissent would have found the reasons inadequate and ordered a new trial.
