R. v. Reaves, 2026 ONCJ 477

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Reaves, 2026 ONCJ 477

DATE: May 21, 2026

COURT FILE No.: Toronto

4810 998 24 48108457

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

TERAY REAVES

Before Justice Hafeez S. Amarshi

Application under ss. 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code

M. Sengupta-Murray............................................................................... counsel for the Crown

Y. Johri................................................................................................ counsel for Teray Reaves

L. Leinveer..................................................................................... counsel for the Complainant

By order of the court under s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, any information that could identify the complainant shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. By order under s. 278.95, any information arising from the application heard under ss. 278.92–278.94, the contents of the application, the evidence taken, the information given and the arguments made at the hearing — and the determination and any reasons therefor — shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way except as provided in these reasons.

H.S. Amarshi J.:

Reasons – Stage 2 Ruling

A. Introduction

1. Teray Reaves is charged with one count of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code. The alleged offence took place in the early morning hours of July 21, 2023, in a hotel room in Toronto. The complainant, B.M. gave a statement to police on February 29, 2024.

2. The accused has brought an application under ss. 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code seeking rulings on the admissibility of records in his possession and proposed areas of cross-examination.

3. On March 6, 2026, I conducted the Stage 1 hearing. I found most of the materials sought to be admitted are likely relevant to an issue at trial.[1] There was broad consensus by the parties at the Stage 1 hearing.

4. The matter then proceeded to a Stage 2 hearing. The complainant participated in the proceedings through independent counsel.

5. For the reasons that follow, the application is granted in part:

(i) The selfie (Exhibit A) is admitted in a redacted form.

(ii) The messages of July 20–24, 2023 (Exhibit B) and December 17, 2023 (Exhibit D) are admitted.

(iii) The messages of October 29, 2023 (Exhibit C) are admitted under a narrowed basis.

(iv) Proposed areas of cross-examination – (a) the fact that the relationship continued after the alleged assault is admissible and is not contentious; (b) the proposed cross-examination that accusations of infidelity “flowed both ways” is not admitted.

B. Background

6. The complainant and Mr. Reaves were in a dating relationship and were living together in Halifax. They travelled together to Toronto on July 20, 2023, to attend a Post Malone concert. The accused had received the tickets in connection with his music career.

7. B.M. became ill at the concert and the couple returned to their hotel room early. The complainant vomited and the accused assisted her in the shower. The couple later went to bed in the hotel room together.

8. B.M. alleges that Mr. Reaves initiated sexual intercourse with her despite her objections. Further, she was too intoxicated to consent, and that he initiated sexual activity more than once over the course of the night.

9. The accused counters B.M. initiated the sexual activity, that she repeatedly asked him to stop and he did so each time. He was frustrated and eventually left the room and attempted meet another woman by text message.

10. The next morning the complainant took a selfie of herself and Mr. Reaves in the hotel room. Both were in a state of undress.

11. Later that day, after receiving messages from another woman, B.M. confronted the accused about his attempts to contact other women the previous night.

12. The relationship continued and in October 2023, the complainant accepted an engagement ring from Mr. Reaves. However, by December 2023 the relationship had broken down. There were communications between the pair about the return of the engagement ring, other property and rent. The accused threatened civil action.

13. Within ten days of the December 17 text message exchange, B.M. attended at the Halifax Police. They facilitated contact with the Toronto Police Service, and she ultimately gave a statement on February 29, 2024.

14. The trial is scheduled for three days. Earlier, I allowed an application by the Crown to permit the complainant to testify remotely from Halifax.

C. General principles: Sections 276 and 278

15. A complainant’s prior sexual activity – or inactivity – is presumptively inadmissible.[2]

16. Section 276(4) of the Criminal Code clarifies that “sexual activity” for the purposes of this section includes “any communication made for a sexual purpose or whose content is of a sexual nature.” This section was enacted specifically to protect the interests of complainants in their own private records.[3] Therefore, if either the Crown or the accused wish to lead evidence of any of the complainant’s communications of other activity whose content is of a sexual nature, an application must be brought.

17. Admissibility of such communications therefore requires a two-part process: (1) an application for a hearing into whether the s. 276(2) application is capable of succeeding; and (2) if that application succeeds, an evidentiary hearing to determine whether, based on the evidence presented, the proposed evidence meets the statutory criteria set in s. 276(2). Specifically, it must be (i) relevant to an issue at trial; (ii) be of specific instances of sexual activity, as opposed to the complainant’s general character or reputation); and (iii) have significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice it poses to the administration of justice, in light of considerations enumerated in s.276(3).[4]

18. In order to discharge the onus of overcoming the prima facie inadmissibility of sexual activity evidence, the accused must additionally bring an application pursuant to section 278.92(3). On such an application, the Court may consider the following factors in determining the admissibility of the evidence:

(a) the interests of justice, including the right of the accused to make a full answer and defence;

(b) society’s interest in encouraging the reporting of sexual assault offences;

(c) society’s interest in encouraging the obtaining of treatment by complainants of sexual offences;

(d) whether there is a reasonable prospect that the evidence will assist in arriving at a just determination in the case;

(e) the need to remove from the fact-finding process any discriminatory belief or bias;

(f) the risk that the evidence may unduly arouse sentiments of prejudice, sympathy or hostility in the jury;

(g) the potential prejudice to the complainant’s personal dignity and right of privacy;

(h) the right of the complainant and of every individual to personal security and to the full protection and benefit of the law; and

(i) any other factor that the judge, provincial court judge or justice considers relevant.

D. Conclusion

Exhibit A — the selfie

19. Exhibit A is a photograph the complainant took of herself and the accused in their hotel room on the morning of July 21, 2023.

20. The proposed use of the selfie is narrowly defined. It is admissible. B.M. described her unease to police the morning after the alleged assault. Mr. Reaves’ anticipated evidence contradicts this. The selfie is contemporaneous evidence of B.M.s demeanour that morning and is capable of contradicting her account of her state of mind. In this context it does not support twin-myth reasoning. That is, because the complainant took an explicit photograph, she must have consented to the previous night’s sexual activity.

21. I acknowledge the admission of the image in an unredacted form would be prejudicial to the complainant’s dignity and privacy. Accordingly, the image of B.M. is to be redacted from the neck down. The image of the accused’s torso is to be redacted. It is clear both parties are in a state of undress. The Crown and defence are to agree to a short description.

Exhibit B — messages of July 20–24, 2023

22. Exhibit B comprises text messages between the complainant and the accused from July 20 to 24, 2023. They include messages exchanged during the day of July 20, after the parties returned to the hotel, and on the days following the alleged offence.

23. Both the Crown and complainant’s counsel do not oppose its admission. The messages relate directly to the subject-matter of the charge and act as a contemporaneous record.

Exhibit C — messages of October 29, 2023

24. Exhibit C consists of text messages dated October 29, 2023, and includes a photograph of the complainant wearing a ring and an exchange of messages around it.

25. The defence argues the engagement and ring are central to a motive to fabricate. Specifically arguing it is this dispute over the return of the ring that triggered B.M.’s complaint to police.

26. The Crown concedes the probative value of the text messages. Complainant’s counsel does not oppose admission of the photograph for the limited purpose of fixing the date but opposes the surrounding messages, which include references to future children and other personal content.

27. During submissions a consensus emerged. The photograph is admitted for the purposes of confirming the fact and timing of the engagement. The parties may consider dispensing with the need to adduce the records in Exhibit C by proceeding by an Agreed Statement of Facts. The complainant does not dispute an engagement took place nor that Mr. Reaves sought the return of the ring and the complainant refused.

28. Cross-examination on the content of the surrounding messages is admissible at trial under the ordinary principles of relevance. On their face they have limited relevance to an issue at trial.

Exhibit D — messages of December 17, 2023

29. Exhibit D is the December 17, 2023, message exchange in which Mr. Reaves tells B.M. she continues to be responsible for rent. He further states he would take legal action to recover his property. The complainant responds in kind. There is seemingly an agreement for the accused’s property to be returned.

30. The Crown concedes Exhibit D is admissible. Complainant’s counsel opposes the admissibility of this record submitting the specific messages are not relevant to an issue at trial. That the fact that the relationship broke down is not in dispute.

31. I accepted Ms. Johri’s submission that the messages could support the defence theory of a motive to fabricate. That this exchange in addition with the surrounding evidence about the breakdown of the engagement could lead to an inference that the complainant had a reason to make a false allegation. Whether that inference is ultimately drawn is a determination to be made at trial.

32. Complainant’s counsel submits that no civil action ever materialized undermining the strength of the inference being sought. However, that is a submission about weight and not admissibility and section 278.92(2)(b) does not require the defence to establish that its theory is correct, only that the evidence has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by prejudice.

Cross-examination on mutual accusations of infidelity

33. The defence proposes to cross-examine on the fact that, during the relationship, both parties accused the other of infidelity. The defence does not seek to establish the truth of the accusations, only the fact that they were made. The defence argues that the complainant will likely present the relationship in a manner which will portray Mr. Reaves in a negative light. That he attempted to cheat on B.M during their trip to Toronto. Ms. Johri wants to be able to put to the complainant that accusations of infidelity flowed in both directions. That this context would provide a fuller picture of the nature and dynamic of the relationship.

34. Section 276 (2) applies. An accusation of infidelity implies the complainant has engaged in sexual activity “other than the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.” The language of s. 276 is to be read functionally and purposively.

35. The Supreme Court in R. v. Goldfinch, 2019 SCC 38, makes clear that bare assertions of context, narrative or credibility cannot satisfy s. 276(2). the evidence must respond to a specific issue at trial that could not be addressed or resolved without it.[5]

36. The defence has not identified such an issue. It is clear based on the admissible records before me that the relationship was tumultuous. It is unclear what further context would be derived from allowing cross-examination on accusations of the complainant’s unfaithfulness.

37. The probative value of an allegation of infidelity is minimal and outweighed by the risk of potential prejudice. Further the privacy interests of the complainant weigh against admission.

38. I conclude that the proposed cross-examination on accusations of infidelity is not admissible under s. 276 or s. 278.92.

H.S. Amarshi J.

1With the exception of Exhibit E in the Applicant’s materials, a handwritten letter from B.M. addressed to the accused, which did not advance to Stage 2.

2Section 276(2) of the Criminal Code; R. v. Kinamore, 2025 SCC 19.

3R. v. Gallan, 2024 ONSC 5338.

4R. v. Reimer, 2024 ONCA 519.

[5]R. v. T.W.W., 2024 SCC 19.