This pre-trial criminal ruling addressed four applications arising from historical sexual offence charges involving an underage complainant subject to a publication ban.
The court granted the Crown's application to amend the indictment date range to include an earlier alleged incident, but refused to admit evidence of the accused's prior sexual relationship with another underage person as similar fact evidence because its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.
The court permitted the defence to lead evidence of the later relationship and family-law dispute between the accused and the complainant, provided the evidence did not focus on sexual activity or invoke twin-myth reasoning under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.
The court also held that the accused's police statement was voluntary and obtained without breach of s. 10(b), although any use of the statement would require editing to conform to the similar fact ruling.
