Conviction quashed; evidence of complainant's prior recanted sexual assault allegations was admissible and not collateral.
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.
Appeal from fraud convictions dismissed; lack of fraudulent intent in uncharged cases irrelevant to charged offences.
The appellant appealed his fraud convictions, arguing the trial judge erred by finding it irrelevant that he did not act fraudulently in 18 other cases and by noting without evidence that this was a common pattern in fraud cases.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's comment on common practice was not relied upon and was common sense.
The court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's intention in the 18 other cases did not speak to his intention in the 16 charged cases, as there was ample other evidence of mens rea.
