Samuel Walker

In a judge-alone historical sexual assault trial, the Crown sought to adduce evidence that the complainant, as a child, engaged in sexual touching with her younger brother while making statements allegedly linking that conduct to what the accused had shown her.

The court held that Crown-led evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity remained subject to common law screening analogous to s. 276 principles and admitted the conduct because it did not invite twin-myth reasoning and had probative value outweighing prejudice.

The alleged statements were admitted as pure narrative and as narrative as circumstantial evidence to explain delayed disclosure, rebut fabrication, and assist in assessing in-court testimony, but not for the truth of their contents.

The court found the principled hearsay exception did not apply because admission for truth was not reasonably necessary and would offend the rule against prior consistent statements.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges arising from allegations that he sexually abused a child relative at family gatherings in the early 1980s.

The court conducted a detailed credibility assessment of the complainant, the accused, and several family witnesses, including consideration of delay in disclosure, prior statements, and evidence from the complainant's brother about separate sexual touching between siblings.

Applying the child-witness guidance in W.(R.) and the burden-of-proof framework in W.(D.), the court found significant difficulties with aspects of both the complainant's and the accused's evidence.

The surrounding evidence did not sufficiently corroborate the allegations, and alternative explanations remained reasonably available.

The Crown therefore failed to prove any count beyond a reasonable doubt.