The Crown sought to call an expert witness to testify on the neurobiology of trauma and the psychological and sociological responses of victims to sexual assault.
The accused was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement.
The proposed expert evidence aimed to explain the complainant's behavior during and after the alleged assaults, including delayed reporting and memory issues.
The court applied the Mohan framework and found that while the evidence was logically relevant, its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.
The court noted concerns with the expert's lack of primary research, potential partiality, and the risk that the jury might use the evidence to improperly assess the complainant's credibility.
The motion to admit the expert evidence was denied.
