All Prior sexual conduct - s.276 application

R v. L.S., 2017 ONCA 685, 2017 OJ No. 4586 (OCA – Doherty): [66] The integrity of the trial process is also protected by insisting that the proposed evidence of other sexual activity be clearly described. Evidence of other sexual activity runs the real risk of derailing a trial by turning it into an inquiry about the complainant’s sexual character Read more...

R v. L.S., 2017 ONCA 685, 2017 OJ No. 4586 (OCA – Doherty): [81] The plain meaning of the words of ss. 276(1) and (2) is consistent with the purpose of those sections. The phrase “sexual activity” is not qualified in either section. Evidence that two people were in a relationship involving regular consensual sexual intercourse is clearly evidence that Read more...

R v Boyle – Unreported – January 13, 2019 – Ottawa – (OCJ – Doody): [13] The defendant takes the position that he is not required to provide the com­ plainant with the application record, but submits that Crown counsel has the discretion to determine whether and what to disclose and in what manner. [14] I have concluded that the Read more...

R v Barton – 2019 SCC 33 (Moldaver): [70] The first substantive issue is one of scope: Can the s. 276 regime apply in a case where the offence charged — here, murder under ss. 231(5)(c) and 235(1) — is not one of the offences listed in s. 276(1)? [71] This issue raises a question of statutory interpretation. The modern Read more...

R v Goldfinch – 2019 SCC 38 (Karakatsanis): [46] Even “relatively benign” relationship evidence must be scrutinized and handled with care. If the accused cannot point to a relevant use of the evidence other than the twin myths, mere assurances that evidence will not be used for those purposes are insufficient. This case highlights the dangers of accepting such assurances. Read more...