Similar Fact Evidence and the Defence of Consent: A Principled Application of R v. Handy in R v. Cyrus
The admissibility of similar fact evidence presents a persistent challenge in Canadian
evidence law, particularly in sexual assault prosecutions where credibility assessments are often
central. Evidence of an accused’s other discreditable conduct is presumptively inadmissible due to
the risk of propensity reasoning and the resulting moral and reasoning prejudice.
