On a Crown motion in a sexual assault prosecution, the court refused to admit alleged other discreditable conduct evidence said to show grooming, actus reus, mens rea, and support for the complainant's credibility.
Applying the governing framework for similar fact and other discreditable conduct evidence, the court held the proposed evidence lacked a defined non-propensity issue, had no logical nexus to the charged assault, and invited impermissible character reasoning.
The court also found parts of the proposed evidence were independently inadmissible as hearsay about others' perceptions or improper lay opinion.
The application was dismissed because any minimal probative value was far outweighed by severe moral and reasoning prejudice.
