In a criminal pretrial evidentiary ruling in a sexual-offence prosecution, the court determined cross-applications by the prosecution and the accused regarding prior discreditable conduct and defence-held records under Criminal Code ss. 278.92 and 278.93.
Applying the governing admissibility framework, the court held that the prosecution’s proposed background and narrative bad-character evidence lacked sufficient material relevance and probative force, and that its prejudicial risks outweighed any limited value.
On the accused’s application, the court held family law materials were not "records" under s. 278.1, dismissed portions linked to a now-moot response theory, and declined to assess sexual-activity messages absent a proper s. 276 application.
The court found selected text-message tabs were capable of meeting the Stage One threshold by supporting a potential motive-to-fabricate theory and directed those materials forward to Stage Two.
