The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against his wife and daughter.
At trial, the Crown introduced extensive evidence of the appellant's uncharged prior discreditable conduct, primarily occurring in China before the family immigrated to Canada.
The trial judge admitted the evidence to show animus and explain the lack of earlier reporting.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to properly assess and balance the reasoning prejudice of this evidence against its probative value.
The volume and highly discreditable nature of the uncharged conduct created a real risk that the jury convicted the appellant for his prior bad acts rather than the charged offences.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
