Rape Shield Provisions: “Specific Instances of Sexual Activity”


In order to be admissible under section 276(2) of the Criminal Code, the evidence must meet three preconditions, the first of which is that the evidence refer to “specific instances of sexual activity”. 

This requirement is designed to ensure that the nature of the proposed evidence is properly identified so that the criteria for admissibility in s. 276(2) can be accurately applied.  The provision also serves to ensure that the Crown has full notice of the evidence to be adduced and that the complainant’s legitimate interests can be properly safeguarded.

R. v. B. (B.), [2009] O.J. No. 862 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), at para. 16.

In an inquiry under section 276, the court is not called upon to make findings of credibility or to determine the accuracy or reliability of the evidence put forward by the accused. 

See R. v. N.K., 2017 ONSC 3482, at para. 16 (obiter).

Degree of Specificity will depend on the Nature of the Sexual Activity

The phrase “specific instances” modifies the phrase “sexual activity”.  The degree of specificity required to meet s. 276(2) (a) depends to a large extent on the nature of the sexual activity that the accused seeks to adduce:  see R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 60336 (ON SC), at paras. 21-22 (S.C.). 

If an accused wants to lead evidence of a specific incident of sexual activity, the details must identify that specific incident.  If, however, the accused seeks to adduce evidence of a general nature, describing the relationship between himself and the complainant, the specificity requirement speaks to factors relevant to identifying the relationship and its nature and not to details of specific sexual encounters.  Insofar as relationship evidence is concerned, the required specifics would include reference to the parties to the relationship, the relevant time period, and the nature of the relationship. 

R. v. L.S., 2017 ONCA 685, at para. 83.

Evidence may meet the test of being evidence of specific instances of sexual activity without precise dates and times.

R. v. N.K., 2017 ONSC 3482, at para. 19.



Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell Law Group, leadersinlaw.ca





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Warrantless Drug Searches (Section 11(7) of the CDSA)

Were there exigent circumstances? Did the exigent circumstances render it impracticable to obtain a warrant? Section 11(7)   of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states: (7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1), (5) or (6) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one. Subsection (1)   of s. 11 empowers a peace officer to conduct a warranted search of a place for, inter alia , a controlled substance and to seize it. Section 11(7), therefore, empowers a peace officer to conduct a warrantless search for a controlled substance, so long as conditions for obtaining a warrant existed and exigent circumstances made it impracticable for the officer to obtain a warrant. For a warrantless entry into a residence to satisfy section 11(7) , the Crown must show that the entry was compelled by urgency, calling for immediate police action to prese
Read more

Arrested at Home: Feeney Warrants

At common law, where the police had reasonable grounds to arrest a suspect and reasonable grounds to believe a suspect was in a private dwelling-house, they were entitled to enter and arrest the suspect, with or without an arrest warrant, if proper announcement was made. See R. v. Landry , 1986 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 145 , and Eccles v. Bourque et al. , 1974 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 ). However, in the 1997 decision of R. v. Feeney , the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the common law violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that generally, warrantless arrests within private dwellings were prohibited.  Absent exigent circumstances or cases of hot pursuit, an entry warrant would be required to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest.    R. v. Feeney , 1997 CanLII 342 (SCC), at paras. 44-51.  Parliament responded by enacting sections 529-529.5 of the Criminal Code , which, among other things, creates two distinct authorizatio
Read more

Night time Execution of a Search Warrant

Warrants Authorized under the Criminal Code The Criminal Code requires that if a warrant is to be executed at night (after 9:00 p.m., see Criminal Code , s. 2), the night time execution must be justified under the terms of s. 488 of the Criminal Code .    Section 488 of the Criminal Code is not made applicable to warrants and telewarrants issued under the authority of section 11 of the CDSA, which may be executed “at any time”.  R. v. Shivrattan, 2017 ONCA 23; R. v. Saunders , 2003 NLCA 63, 181 C.C.C. (3d) 268, at paras. 27, 31-32, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 SCC 70, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 505; R. v. Dueck , 2005 BCCA 448, 200 C.C.C. (3d) 378, at paras. 17-21; and R. v. Newell , [2007] O.J. No. 2348, at para. 47 (Ont. S.C.). Warrants Authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Unlike warrants issued under the Criminal Code , there is no statutory presumption that warrants issued under s. 11 of the CDSA are to be executed before 9:00 p.m. unless night t
Read more