R. Habjan

The three accused were charged with kidnapping, assault, and uttering threats against the complainant, who was suspected of having information about a high-profile missing person case.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the complainant, who was struggling with severe drug addiction at the time of the events.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be riddled with inconsistencies, illogical claims, and memory gaps, rendering her not credible.

As the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, all three accused were acquitted.

The Crown brought an application to admit the accused's prior convictions for sexual assault as similar fact evidence in their upcoming trial for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman.

The Crown argued the prior convictions, which also involved sexual assaults on unconscious women, were highly probative of identity and intention.

The accused opposed, arguing the acts were dissimilar and the evidence was highly prejudicial.

The court allowed the application, finding that the prior convictions went beyond showing general disposition and that their probative value outweighed the potential for reasoning prejudice.