The appellant was convicted of attempting to live off the avails of prostitution of a person under 18 and aiding the complainant to engage in prostitution.
At trial, the Crown introduced extensive evidence of extrinsic misconduct, including text messages, online advertisements, and provocative photographs found on the appellant's computer and cell phones, which were not directly connected to the complainant.
The trial judge failed to provide a limiting instruction to the jury warning against propensity reasoning.
The Court of Appeal held that this failure was a reversible error, as there was a real risk the jury would use the evidence to conclude the appellant was a bad person likely to have committed the offences.
The curative proviso was not applied, and a new trial was ordered.
