The accused, charged with sexual assault and common assault, brought an application under section 278.94 of the Criminal Code seeking leave to cross-examine the complainant about an alleged consensual sexual encounter that occurred months after the alleged offences.
The accused argued the evidence was relevant to the complainant's credibility and supported his defence that the assault never occurred.
The court dismissed the application, finding that admitting the evidence would violate the myth-based reasoning prohibition in section 276(1) and that the evidence lacked significant probative value to outweigh its prejudicial effect.
