View source for Complainant Sexual Activity Evidence and Related Evidence

[[fr:Preuves relatives à l'activité sexuelle du plaignant]]{{Currency2|November|2023}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderCharacter}}

==General Principles==
{{seealso|Complainant's Sexual History (Prior to December 13, 2018)|Crown Duty to Disclose|Disclosure of Third Party Records|Admission of Sexual Activity Evidence for Sexual Offences|Production of Records for Sexual Offences}}

Section 276{{CCC}} is an exclusionary rule of evidence prohibiting any party from adducing evidence of sexual activity of a complainant that is not part of a criminal offence on the basis that it may be used to support prohibited inferences related to the sexual activity of the victim. 

; Applicable to Defence and Crown
The exclusionary rule found in s. 276 will require both defence and Crown to apply to the trial judge before they can adduce sexual activity evidence.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Barton|j0fqj|2019 SCC 33 (CanLII)|[2019] 2 SCR 579}}{{perSCC-H|Moldaver J}}{{atL|j0fqj|80}} ("...s. 276(1), which confirms the irrelevance of the “twin myths”, is categorical in nature and applies irrespective of which party has led the prior sexual activity evidence. Thus, regardless of the evidence adduced by the Crown, Mr. Barton’s evidence was inadmissible to support either of the “twin myths”.")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Goldfinch|j16t7|2019 SCC 38 (CanLII)|380 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}{{atL|j16t7|75}} ("I note that Crown counsel would not have adduced this evidence but for the s. 276 application, which I have concluded should not have been granted. While the parties did not have the benefit of this Court’s recent holding in Barton, I would reiterate that Crown-led evidence of prior sexual activity must be governed by the principles set out in s. 276(1) and Seaboyer (Barton, at paras. 68, 80 and 197)")
</ref>

; Components of the Rule
The exclusionary rule under s. 276 can be broken down into three components to be engaged:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MT|fs52f|2012 ONCA 511 (CanLII)|289 CCC (3d) 115}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|fs52f|29}}</ref>
* offence charged
* subject-matter
* purpose

It is considered rare for prior sexual activity to have any bearing to support a finding that the sexual offence did not occur.<ref>
{{ibid1|MT}}{{atL|fs52f|41}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Darrach|523t|2000 SCC 46 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 443}}{{perSCC|Gonthier J}}{{atL|523t|58}}
</ref>

; Purpose
The intention of Parliament in enacting this provision was to respond to the findings of ''R v Seaboyer'' as they relate to the false relevancy of prior sexual activities.<ref>
{{ibid1|Darrach}}{{atL|523t|33}}<br>
</ref>

The purpose behind the principles from Seaboyer is to protect "a complainant’s dignity, equality and privacy rights."<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Delmas|j6l6r|2020 ABCA 152 (CanLII)|64 CR (7th) 71}}{{AtL|j6l6r|46}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (2:1) ("The purpose of the Seaboyer common law principle ..., and s 276 is to protect “a complainant’s dignity, equality and privacy rights,”")
</ref>
This protection exists beyond the trial and includes the appeal process and potentially beyond.<Ref>
R v Davies, 2022 BCCA 103 at para 1 and 2
</reF>

; Principles of Fundamental Justice
The principles of fundamental justice include three purposes of s. 276:<ref>
{{supra1|Darrach}}{{atL|523t|25}}
</ref>
# "protecting the integrity of the trial by excluding evidence that is misleading"
# "protecting the rights of the accused, as well as encouraging the reporting of sexual violence" and 
# protecting the “security and privacy of the witnesses” "

; Context Necessary
Section 276 is not a "blanket exclusion of evidence of other sexual activity" and should not leave the trier-of-fact with a "misleading impression" of the relationship between the parties.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Temertzoglou|1hlq0|2002 CanLII 2852 (ON SC)|[2002] OJ No 4951 (O.S.C.)}}{{perONSC|Furest J}}
</ref>

; When Section 276 Not Usually Available to Accused
Where the accused's defence is a denial that the sexual activity ever took place, the use of evidence captured by s. 276 will "rarely" be available.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Kulasingam|hwx8d|2019 ABCA 6 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|hwx8d|8}} (" Evidence of prior sexual activity will rarely be relevant to support a denial that sexual activity took place:" citing {{supra1|Darrach}}{{atL|523t|58}})
</ref>

; Accidental Disclosure of 276 Records
Defence counsel are not permitted to possess s. 276 records nor can they use the records without first making an application. When obtained unlawfully, they must be returned and then subject to an application. The records cannot be used to support the granting of the application.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Gray|2015 ONSC 3284}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Complainant Sexual Activity Evidence===
Section 276(1){{CCC}} prohibits evidence of prior sexual conduct where it is used to make prohibited general inferences. These inferences are known as the "dual myths" or "dual myths", summarized as inferring "that unchaste women were more likely to consent to intercourse and in any event, were less worthy of belief" <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Seaboyer|1fskf|1991 CanLII 76 (SCC)|[1991] 2 SCR 577}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}{{atp|386}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|MM|1wd0m|1999 CanLII 15063 (ON SC)|[1999] OJ No 3943 (SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Langdon J}}{{atL|1wd0m|19}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|MT|fs52f|2012 ONCA 511 (CanLII)|289 CCC (3d) 115}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|fs52f|32}}<br>
</ref>

The myths also cover the belief that the sexual assault complainant has a higher tendency to fabricate, which is not supported by the law.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|G(A)|5264|2000 SCC 17 (CanLII)|[2000] 1 SCR 439}}{{perSCC|L’Heureux-Dubé J}}{{atL|5264|3}}
</ref>

The section states:
{{quotation2|
; Evidence of complainant’s sexual activity
276 (1) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 151 {{AnnSec1|151}}, 152 {{AnnSec1|152}}, 153 {{AnnSec1|153}}, 153.1 {{AnnSec1|153.1}} or 155 {{AnnSec1|155}}, subsection 160(2) {{AnnSec1|160(2)}} or (3) {{AnnSec1|160(3)}} or section 170 {{AnnSec1|170}}, 171 {{AnnSec1|171}}, 172 {{AnnSec1|172}}, 173 {{AnnSec1|173}}, 271 {{AnnSec2|271}}, 272 {{AnnSec2|272}} or 273 {{AnnSec2|273}}, evidence that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity, whether with the accused or with any other person, is not admissible to support an inference that, by reason of the sexual nature of that activity, the complainant
:(a) is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge; or
:(b) is less worthy of belief.
{{Removed|(2), (3), and (4)}}
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 276; 
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.)}}, s. 12 
{{LegHistory90s|1992, c. 38}}, s. 2 
{{LegHistory00s|2002, c. 13}}, s. 13; 
{{LegHistory10s|2018, c. 29}}, s. 21; 
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 100.
{{Annotation}}
|{{CCCSec2|276}}
|{{NoteUp|276|1}}
}}

; Must Relate to Myths
Where the purpose of the evidence does not touch on the two "myths", then the exclusionary rule does not apply.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MT|fs52f|2012 ONCA 511 (CanLII)|289 CCC (3d) 115}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|fs52f|32}}<br>
</ref>

; Exclusion Other than Twin Myths
This section also provides that even if the impugned evidence is not being used in violation of the twin myths it can still be inadmissible where the probative value is not sufficiently "significant" to outweigh competing considerations.<ref>
{{ibid1|Darrach}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Sexual Reputation Evidence===
Section 277 further prohibits the use of "sexual reputation" evidence to challenge or bolster credibility:

{{quotation2|
; Reputation evidence
277. In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 151 {{AnnSec1|151}}, 152 {{AnnSec1|152}}, 153 {{AnnSec1|153}}, 153.1 {{AnnSec1|153.1}} or 155 {{AnnSec1|155}}, subsection 160(2) {{AnnSec1|160(2)}} or (3) {{AnnSec1|160(3)}} or section 170 {{AnnSec1|170}}, 171 {{AnnSec1|171}}, 172 {{AnnSec1|172}}, 173 {{AnnSec1|173}}, 271 {{AnnSec2|271}}, 272 {{AnnSec2|272}} or 273 {{AnnSec2|273}}, evidence of sexual reputation, whether general or specific, is not admissible for the purpose of challenging or supporting the credibility of the complainant.
<br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 277; 
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.)}}, s. 13; 
{{LegHistory00s|2002, c. 13}}, s. 14; 
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s.101.
|{{CCCSec2|277}}
|{{NoteUp|277}}
}}

This prohibition under s. 277 is absolute with no exceptions.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Brothers|2dc9s|1995 ABCA 185 (CanLII)|99 CCC (3d) 64}}{{perABCA|Russell JA}}{{atL|2dc9s|26}}<br>
</ref> 
It is directed at evidence of ''reputation'' and not actual fact.<ref>
{{ibid1|Brothers}}{{atL|2dc9s|27}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Constitutionality===
; Constitutionality of s. 276 and 277
Both the procedural and substantive aspects of s. 276 do not violate s. 7 or 11(d){{CCRF}}.<ref>
{{supra1|Darrach}}<br>
</ref>
However, it has been observed that s. 276 "cannot be interpreted so as to deprive a person of a fair defence."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Crosby|1frj7|1995 CanLII 107 (SCC)|[1995] 2 SCR 912}}{{perSCC|L'Heureux‑Dubé J}}{{atL|1frj7|11}}<br>
</ref>

Section 277 does not violate s. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|R v Seaboyer; R v Gayme|1fskf|1991 CanLII 76 (SCC)|[1991] 2 SCR 577}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}<br>
</ref>

; Retrospectivity of Bill C-51 Amendments
The amendments are procedural and do not affect substantive rights.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|RMR|j1rzp|2019 BCSC 1093 (CanLII)|56 CR (7th) 414}}{{AtL|j1rzp|5}}
</ref>

; Constitutionality of Bill C-51 Amendments
There are various challenges to the Bill C-51 amendments. Most courts are finding them to be constitutional.<ref>
Constitutional:<br>
{{CanLIIRP|AC|j1h00|2019 ONSC 4270 (CanLII)|439 CRR (2d) 360}}{{perONSC|Sutherland J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|FA|j109l|2019 ONCJ 391 (CanLII)|56 CR (7th) 182}}{{perONCJ|Caponecchia J}}<br>
Unconstitutional:<br>
{{CanLIIRP|AM|j21hz|2019 SKPC 46 (CanLII)|56 CR (7th) 389}}{{perSKPC|Henning J}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Offence Charged==
The applicable offences are listed in s. 276(1) as consisting of:
* [[Sexual Interference (Offence)|sexual interference]] (151)
* [[Invitation to Sexual Touching (Offence)|invitation to sexual touching]] (152)
* [[Sexual Exploitation (Offence)|sexual exploitation]] (153)
* [[Sexual Exploitation (Offence)|sexual exploitation of a person with a disability]] (153.1)
* [[Incest (Offence)|incest]] (155)
* [[Offences Found to be Unconstitutional|anal intercourse]] (159)
* [[Bestiality (Offence)|bestiality]] (160(2) and (3))
* [[Parent or Guardian Procuring Sexual Activity (Offence)|Parent or guardian procuring sexual activity]] (170)
* [[Householder Permitting Sexual Activity (Offence)|Householder permitting sexual activity]] (171)
* [[Miscellaneous Sexual Offences#Corrupting Children|Corrupting children]] (172)
* [[Indecent Act (Offence)|indecent act]] (173)
* [[Sexual Assault (Offence)|sexual assault]] (271)
* [[Sexual Assault with a Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm (Offence)|sexual assault with a weapon]] (272)
* [[Sexual Assault with a Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm (Offence)|sexual assault causing bodily harm]] (272)
* [[Aggravated Sexual Assault (Offence)|aggravated sexual assault]] (273)

In addition to the enumerated charges, the protections of s. 276 will also apply to any charges that have "some connection" to an enumerated offence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Barton|j0fqj|2019 SCC 33 (CanLII)|[2019] 2 SCR 579}}{{perSCC-H|Moldaver J}}{{atL|j0fqj|76}} ("...I am of the view that the s. 276 regime applies to any proceeding in which an offence listed in s. 276(1) has some connection to the offence charged, even if no listed offence was particularized in the charging document. ...")<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Applicable Subject Matter==
Section 276 applies to prior sexual acts consisting of "[e]vidence ... that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity other than the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, whether with the accused or with any other person."<ref>Section 276(2)</ref>
This includes sexual acts that occur in the moments before the alleged sexual assault.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|DRS|5p9j|1999 ABQB 330 (CanLII)|247 AR 315}}{{perABQB|Lee J}}{{atL|5p9j|19}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Silva|1nqq9|1994 CanLII 4673 (SK CA)|31 CR (4th) 361}}{{perSKCA|Wakeling JA}}{{atL|1nqq9|33}}</ref>
It can also include sexual activity occurring after the events at issue.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|RSL|1nfpz|2006 NBCA 64 (CanLII)|209 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perNBCA|Richard JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Van Oostrom|, [1993] OJ No 1084}} - re "continued friendly social contact" and "consensual sexual intercourse"<br>
</ref>

The fact that the complainant had previously made allegations of sexual abuse against another person is not admissible to establish a false pattern of accusations or to undermine the complainant unless the other allegations have been recanted or demonstrated as false.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|CC|gg4rs|2015 ONCA 59 (CanLII)|329 OAC 272}}{{perONCA|Pardu JA}}{{atL|gg4rs|32}}<br>
</ref>

This section does not prohibit the complainant from testifying that she is a virgin, as this is a question of physical fact and not a "sexual activity". Such evidence, however, is prohibited under s. 277 from being used to bolster credibility.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Pittiman|1l3db|2005 CanLII 23206 (ON CA)|198 CCC (3d) 308}}{{perONCA|Weiler JA}}{{atL|1l3db|33}}, Borins JA dissenting on result, appealed to {{CanLII|1mv05|2006 SCC 9 (CanLII)}}{{perSCC|Charron J}} (5:0) on another issue <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Brothers|2dc9s|1995 ABCA 185 (CanLII)|99 CCC (3d) 64}}{{perABCA|Russell JA}}
</ref>

; Collateral Facts
The trial judge may prohibit the accused from impeaching the complainant on their version of prior sexual contact on account that it violates the collateral fact rule.<ref>
R v Peters, 2023 MBCA 96 (CanLII) at paras 25 to 26{{fix}}
[[Collateral Fact Rule]]
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==="Sexual Activity"===

The meaning of "sexual activity" is not restricted to "overly sexual acts" and can include  acts "done for a sexual purpose."<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|JL|gg97l|2015 ONCJ 61 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Murray J}}{{atL|gg97l|20}} ("“sexual activity” can be comprised of any activity which the evidence establishes was done for a sexual purpose. It need not involve the touching of body parts. It need not be an “invitation” to touching.)<br>
{{CanLIIRx|AM|h3fzw|2017 NBQB 61 (CanLII)}}{{perNBQB|Walsh SCJ}}{{atL|h3fzw|11}} <br>
{{CanLIIRx|NS|h42qf|2016 ONCJ 874 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Weagant PCJ}}{{atL|h42qs|7}}<br>
</ref>
It can include general activities that are for a sexual purpose such as communicating for the purpose of prostitution.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Drakes|1wmc4|1998 CanLII 14968 (BC CA)|122 CCC (3d) 498}}{{perBCCA|Lambert JA}}{{atsL|1wmc4|16| to 17}}<br>
</ref>

; Communications
Section 276(4) adds to the meaning of "sexual activity" to include communications that either:
# were made for a sexual purpose or 
# have contents of a sexual nature.

The section states:
{{quotation2|
276<br>
{{Removed|(1), (2) and (3)}}
; Interpretation
(4) For the purpose of this section, sexual activity includes any communication made for a sexual purpose or whose content is of a sexual nature.
<br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 276; 
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.)}}, s. 12;
{{LegHistory90s|1992, c. 38}}, s. 2;
{{LegHistory00s|2002, c. 13}}, s. 13; 
{{LegHistory10s|2018, c. 29}}, s. 21; 
{{LegHistory10s|2019, c. 25}}, s. 100.
|{{CCCSec2|276}}
|{{NoteUp|276|4}}
}}

; Other forms of "sexual activity" 
It has also be found to include the following activities of the complainant:
* discussions and solicitation to have a "threesome";<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Zachariou|g1ngj|2013 ONSC 6694 (CanLII)|[2013] OJ No 4899 (SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Code SCJ}} -- appeal dismissed {{CanLII|gk1pm|2015 ONCA 527 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{supra1|Drakes}}</ref>
* passionate kissing in the bathroom; <ref>
{{ibid1|Zachariou}}</ref>
* posting of sexually explicit images on social media;<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|JI|gg97l|2015 ONCJ 61 (CanLII)|[2015] OJ No 703 (Ont. C.J.)}}{{perONCJ|Murray PCJ}}</ref>
* a description of being sexual assaulted in the past;<ref>
{{ibid1|JI}}</ref>
* engaging in online sex chat with a stranger;<ref>
{{ibid1|JI}}</ref>
* the presence of BDSM equipment used by the complainant.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Boyle|j1hpv|2019 ONCJ 516 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Doody J}}
</ref>

Statements as to the absence of sexual activity, such as the statement that the complainant is a virgin, will likely be captured by s. 276.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|RV|j1pzb|2019 SCC 41 (CanLII)|378 CCC (3d) 193}}{{perSCC|Karakatsanis J}}{{AtL|j1pzb|81}}
</reF>

Solo activities of a sexual nature such as watching pornography can constitute "sexual activity."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|DCS|jspvw|2022 ABPC 223 (CanLII)}}{{atL|jspvw|18}}<br>
{{CanLIIRT|RI|jfr28|2021 ONSC 3236 (CanLII)}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|DM|2019 ONSC 3895}}
</ref>

; Not Included as "sexual activity"
Courts have found that the following types of evidence are not "sexual activity":
* discussions of prospective sexual activity<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Langan|j46xt|2019 BCCA 467 (CanLII)|383 CCC (3d) 516}}{{perBCCA|Bauman CJ}}{{atsL|j46xt|118| to 119}} -  affirmed at 2020 SCC 33 (CanLII)
</ref>
* general discussions of the complainant's relationship<Ref>
{{ibid1|Langan}}{{atsL|j46xt|106| to 109}}
</ref>

Sexual inactivity is not a form of sexual activity within the meaning of s. 276.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Antonelli|fnhlh|2011 ONSC 5416 (CanLII)|280 CCC (3d) 96}}{{perONSC|Himel J}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==History==
{{seealso|Complainant's Sexual History (Prior to December 13, 2018)}}
On December 13, 2018, sections 276.1 to 276.5 were repealed by 2018, c. 27 (Bill C-51). <ref>
[[List of Criminal Code Amendments (2010 to 2019)]]
</ref>
Section 276.1(2) was modified to rely on s. 278.93 to 278.94 instead of s. 276.1 onward. It also added the requirement of establishing that it "is not being adduced for the purpose of supporting an inference described in subsection (1)". Section 276.1(4) was also added.

{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Complainant's Sexual History (Prior to December 13, 2018)]]
* [[Admission of Certain Complainant Evidence for Sexual Offences]]
* [[Production of Records for Sexual Offences]]
* [[Precedent_-_Section_276_Application]]
* [[Precedent - Section 278.3 Application]]
* [[Precedent - Seaboyer Application]]