The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence in a jury trial involving multiple sexual offence charges against a foster father relating to three complainants who had lived in the accused’s foster home.
The defence argued that the evidence of one complainant was so unreliable as to be incapable of belief and therefore should not be considered as similar fact evidence.
The court reviewed the governing principles from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the admissibility of similar fact evidence and assessed the probative value of the evidence in relation to its prejudicial effect.
Given the pattern of conduct alleged within the foster home context and the similarities in the surrounding circumstances, the court concluded that the evidence was reasonably capable of belief and possessed significant probative value.
The probative value outweighed the potential prejudice and the evidence was admitted with appropriate jury instructions.
