The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual exploitation, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on inadmissible evidence.
At trial, the Crown introduced evidence of the appellant's sexual relationship with the complainant after the complainant turned 18, which the trial judge ruled inadmissible under section 276 of the Criminal Code.
However, the trial judge subsequently relied on this post-majority relationship to reject the appellant's exculpatory police statement.
The Superior Court of Justice found this to be a reversible error, as the appellant was assured the evidence was inadmissible and had no opportunity to address it.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
