Citation: R. Goldfinch, SCC 38, [] 3 S. Appeal Heard: January 16, Judgment Rendered: June 28, Patrick John Goldfinch Appellant. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. Indexed as: R. The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a woman he had dated and lived with. He argued that the sexual nature of the relationship provided important context without which the jury would be left with the artificial impression that he and the complainant had a platonic relationship. At trial, both sides led evidence regarding the frequency of the sexual contact between the complainant and the accused.
The jury found the accused not guilty. In its view, the only inferences to be drawn from the evidence were those relying on the twin myths and limiting instructions could not cure the fact that the jury had heard inadmissible evidence for which there was no permissible use. Held Brown J. A new trial is required.
The Canadian justice system strives to protect the ability of triers of fact to get at the truth. It protects the integrity of the trial process by safeguarding both the dignity and privacy of complainants and the right of accused persons to make full answer and defence.
It is designed to exclude irrelevant information that is more prejudicial to the administration of justice than it is probative. Sections 1 and 2 operate together to achieve these objectives. When an accused seeks to introduce such evidence for some other purpose, that evidence is presumptively inadmissible unless the accused satisfies s.
To do so, the accused must demonstrate that the evidence is of specific instances of sexual activity, is relevant to an issue at trial, and has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
