During a criminal trial for alleged sexual assault, the accused brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code seeking to cross‑examine the complainant regarding possible alternative sources of injuries and DNA evidence.
The defence argued that sexual activity with others shortly before the alleged assault might account for genital injuries and the presence of DNA from multiple males on the complainant’s clothing.
The court held that limited questioning about sexual activity in the hours preceding the alleged assault could be permitted where it had significant probative value relating to alternative causes of injury.
However, broader questioning into the complainant’s sexual history during the period she owned the clothing was excluded because its minimal probative value was outweighed by the serious prejudice and invasion of privacy.
The application was therefore granted in part and denied in part.
