The accused brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code seeking leave to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity between the accused and the complainant in a prosecution for sexual assault and assault.
The accused argued the evidence was relevant to challenge the complainant’s credibility by establishing inconsistencies regarding prior meetings between the parties.
The court held that the sexual nature of the alleged prior encounters was not relevant to the credibility issue and that the defence could challenge the complainant’s testimony about prior contact without introducing evidence of sexual activity.
The proposed evidence therefore failed to meet the relevance requirement under s. 276(2)(b) and, in any event, lacked significant probative value outweighing its prejudicial effect under s. 276(2)(c).
Considering the factors in s. 276(3), admission was not necessary for full answer and defence and would undermine the proper administration of justice.
