The accused were jointly charged with multiple sexual offences and assault against a child.
Prior to trial, the accused brought an application to exclude testimony from a neighbour who overheard a statement suggesting the child was being "pimped out to pedophiles".
The defence argued the statement was irrelevant and highly prejudicial, relying on jurisprudence excluding speculative overheard utterances where probative value is minimal.
The court distinguished those authorities, finding the statement had contextual value as narrative evidence explaining the police investigation and supporting the Crown’s allegation of a sexualized environment surrounding the child.
The probative value was not outweighed by prejudice.
The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.
