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 rather than the
accused’s guilt. Evidence of other sexual activity involving the complainant, particularly
cross-examination of the complainant about other sexual activity, can, unless carefully controlled,
interfere with the trial process by unfairly compromising the complainant’s ability to give an
accurate and complete account of the relevant events. Far-ranging cross-examination of
complainants about other sexual activity runs the very real risk of intimidating, humiliating and
distracting the complainant in the course of his or her testimony. None of those conditions are
conducive to a witness providing an accurate and credible account of the relevant events.

[67] The importance of clearly identifying the evidence sought to be introduced under s. 276(2) is
apparent from an examination of the statutory regime governing admissibility. Section 276.1(2)(a)
requires that the application for an evidentiary hearing provide “detailed particulars of the evidence
that the accused seeks to adduce”. Absent compliance with that provision, the judge cannot order an
evidentiary hearing under s. 276.2. If an evidentiary hearing is ordered, the judge can admit the
evidence only if it is evidence “of specific instances of sexual activity”: s. 276(2)(a).