The Crown sought to introduce similar fact evidence between two separate sexual assault allegations involving different complainants.
The Crown argued that similarities between the incidents demonstrated that the accused administered a drug to each complainant to facilitate sexual assault and supported credibility findings.
The court reviewed the governing test for similar fact evidence, including the requirement that its probative value outweigh its prejudicial effect and that the similarities render coincidence objectively improbable.
Despite some overlapping circumstances, the court found significant differences between the incidents, including the nature of the relationships, the circumstances of the encounters, the symptoms described, and an eight‑year gap between the events.
The court concluded the similarities were not sufficiently distinctive to overcome the highly prejudicial effect of the proposed evidence.
