The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding evidence that the complainant had previously made and recanted two other allegations of sexual assault.
The Court of Appeal held that the evidence did not engage s. 276 of the Criminal Code as it did not involve sexual activity.
The court found the evidence was relevant to the complainant's credibility and was not barred by the collateral fact rule, as the recantations were allegedly made in the same conversation where the complainant reported the assault by the appellant.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.
