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. Nevertheless, such evidence may be admitted.
A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? The Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence as Narrative
Similar fact evidence is only intended to be admitted under exceptional circumstances. Yet, Canadian courts have developed a dangerous trend of accepting evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible as part of a narrative loophole. Crown prosecutors have been framing similar fact evidence for the purpose of establishing “context” and claim that it helps explain the narrative surrounding the alleged offence.
