On a pre-trial application in a historical sexual assault and sexual exploitation prosecution, the Crown sought to adduce similar fact evidence from another witness alleging comparable sexual misconduct by the accused during the same period.
Applying the framework in Handy, the court found the proposed evidence highly probative on the actus reus, opportunity, and anticipated innocent-contact or fabrication issues, given the distinctive similarities in victim profile, relationship of trust, location, timing, and manner of the alleged assaults.
The court also found an air of reality to a collusion argument arising from Facebook contact between the complainant and the proposed witness, but concluded on a balance of probabilities that no actual collusion occurred.
Although the evidence carried substantial moral and reasoning prejudice, its probative value sufficiently outweighed that prejudice and the evidence was admitted.
