This ruling addresses a defence application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of prior consensual sexual activity between the accused and the complainant in a historical sexual assault case.
The accused sought to introduce the evidence to contextualize his actions and challenge the complainant's credibility regarding the nature of their prior relationship, arguing that without it, his conduct would appear unexplained.
The Crown and complainant opposed, asserting it would invite "twin myths." The court granted the application, finding the evidence admissible as it was fundamental to the coherence of the defence narrative and not being adduced for prohibited purposes, drawing parallels to R. v. Temertzoglou.
The decision emphasizes the accused's right to make full answer and defence.
