R v Sandhu, 2009 ONCA 102 (Laskin):

[15] Second, much of the evidence given by both Mr. Sandhu and Ms. Sandhu is relevant to all the counts. For example, in discussing her marital relationship, Ms. Sandhu testified that she sought her husband’s permission before doing anything, that she did as she was told, and that she would not have left him because her culture dictated otherwise. All of this evidence was relevant to all the counts. Equally, Mr. Sandhu’s testimony that his wife was the aggressor, that she was threatening and controlling, and that she fabricated the allegations to get back at him for leaving her, was relevant to all the counts.

[16] Third, in cases of this sort in which an accused is alleged to have engaged in abusive conduct against the same complainant over a period of time, the accused’s discreditable conduct is relevant and admissible to show animus toward the complainant: see R. v. F.(D.S.) (1999), 43 O.R. (3d) 609, per O’Connor A.C.J.O., at pp. 614 – 618 (C.A.); R. v. Krugel (2000), 143 C.C.C. (3d) 367, per Moldaver J.A. at 391 – 393 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Batte (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 321, per Doherty J.A., at paras. 102-114 (C.A.); R. v. C.(N.P.) (2007), 86 O.R. (3d) 571, per Gillese J.A., at paras. 13 – 23 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 144; R. v. S.(P.) (2007), 221 C.C.C. (3d) 45, per Goudge J.A., at paras. 24 – 41 (C.A.).

[17] Thus, if the trial judge had given the instruction Mr. Sandhu seeks – “you must not infer that the accused is a bad person and therefore committed the offences with which he is charged” – she would have had to balance that instruction by a proper instruction on animus or predisposition – for example, “you may infer that the accused had a particular animus toward the complainant, or a predisposition to abuse her”. This latter, and entirely appropriate, instruction would not have helped Mr. Sandhu.