The appellant was acquitted of rape at trial after the judge excluded the complainant's sister's testimony regarding an early complaint.
The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in not leaving the sister's evidence to the jury.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a complaint is any statement by the alleged victim that has probative value in negating adverse conclusions from silence.
The Court clarified that the trial judge's role on a voir dire is to determine if there is some evidence of a complaint, its spontaneity, and whether it was made at the first reasonable opportunity, but the ultimate weighing of conflicting evidence regarding the complaint's existence is for the jury.
