Case information

Criminal law — Evidence — Jury charge — Whether the trial judge was required to provide a specific instruction about the limited value and use of proclivity evidence and, if so, the content of that instruction — Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of the trial judge’s failure to tailor the s. 276 Criminal Code instructions to the circumstances of this case.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)

The applicant was charged with having sexually assaulted the complainant at a house party. The complainant had no memory of the sexual activity in question, but the applicant’s DNA was positively identified from swabs taken from the complainant. The applicant testified that he did not have sex with the complainant at the party but did have consensual sex with her earlier in the day. The complainant denied that such an encounter took place. Prior to the trial commencing, the applicant applied under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of sexual activity not connected with the offence charged. The trial judge allowed the application, and agreed to provide a mid-trial and final instruction to the jury regarding the use that could be made of evidence of prior sexual contact. After a trial by judge and jury, the applicant was found guilty of sexual assault. The applicant’s conviction appeal was dismissed.