Steven Dallal

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and breach of bail conditions arising from a short-lived relationship with the complainant.

The Crown's case relied almost entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be highly inconsistent, contradictory, and in some instances, entirely fabricated, including a bizarre story about being threatened by the mafia disguised as police officers.

Applying the principles of reasonable doubt to credibility findings, the court concluded it was impossible to determine which material parts of the complainant's testimony were true.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The Crown applied to adduce similar fact evidence of prior discreditable conduct by the accused, involving two other complainants in different cities.

The Crown argued the accused had a modus operandi of seeking out vulnerable women in homeless shelters or transit, engaging in short intense relationships, and committing sexual assaults accompanied by physical violence.

Applying the Handy framework, the court found the proposed evidence lacked sufficient similarity and strength, noting significant dissimilarities in the circumstances and weaknesses in the prior evidence.

The court concluded the evidence had little probative value and its admission would cause undue moral prejudice.

The application was denied.