High court overturns B.C. sex assault conviction, clarifies ‘confusion' over evidence
The Supreme Court of Canada is pictured in Ottawa, Monday, June 3, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick
The Supreme Court of Canada says a British Columbia man convicted of sexual assault in 2022 should get a new trial because social media messages used as evidence against him were admitted to court without a proper hearing.
The court says the ruling confirms that it's not just evidence about a sexual assault complainant's history of sexual activity that's inadmissible at trial without a hearing — but also their history of sexual inactivity.
The ruling released Friday says Dustin Kinamore was 22 when he met the 16-year-old complainant in May 2020, and they exchanged sexualized social media messages that became key pieces of evidence at trial.
The ruling says the messages were introduced by the Crown to show the complainant wasn't interested in a sexual relationship with Kinamore — but the trial judge didn't hold an admissibility hearing, highlighting 'uncertainty' around rules governing evidence about a complainant's sexual history.
The decision says the messages were evidence of sexual inactivity, and confusion about their use in the trial arose because they were introduced by the prosecution rather than the defence.
The court ruled that evidence about a complainant's past sexual inactivity is presumed inadmissible, quashed Kinamore's conviction and ordered a new trial because the messages were used without a hearing to precisely determine relevance.
The ruling says so-called 'sexual history evidence' is presumed inadmissible because it can perpetuate 'myths and stereotypes' about complainants.
'The increasing complexity of sexual offence trials in Canada poses a challenge to our overburdened criminal justice system. One source of complexity lies in the application of the rules that govern evidence of a complainant's sexual history,' Chief Justice Wagner wrote, with the other judges agreeing.
'Although these evidentiary rules are essential to eliminate discriminatory myths and stereotypes from the fact-finding process and safeguard the dignity, privacy, and equality interests of complainants, uncertainty about their scope and procedural requirements has caused unnecessary confusion and disruption.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 13, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
22 minutes ago
- CTV News
Man found sitting along Hwy. 417 taken to hospital, Ottawa OPP looking for his family
Police are asking the family of a man who was found sitting along Highway 417 in Ottawa to come forward. (OPP/ X) The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) is asking the family of a man who was found sitting along Highway 417 in Ottawa on Friday to come forward. He was found sitting along the highway westbound, near the March and Eagleson roads exit. Police say the man was taken to hospital as he 'may have experienced some form of medical episode.' Officers add that no identification was found on him, noting that he was not able to communicate with them. They add that there are no missing person reports matching his description. He is described as approximately 50-year-old. At the time he was found he was wearing blue jeans, a black t-shirt and a dark grey sweater with black/red shoes. 'We urgently want to locate this man's family or other caregiver,' the OPP said in a post on X. Anyone with information is asked to call police at 1-888-310-1122 and refer to incident E250796322.
CTV News
24 minutes ago
- CTV News
B.C. Realtor's licence cancelled over ‘deceptive and underhanded' conduct
Real estate sale signage is shown on a street in Oakville, Ont., west of Toronto, on Thursday, Nov.7, 2024. (Richard Buchan / The Canadian Press) A B.C. Realtor who lost a court case against a former client earlier this year has now had his licence cancelled by the provincial real estate regulator. Alan Hu and his Personal Real Estate Corporation recently entered a consent order agreement with the B.C. Financial Services Authority, in which they agreed to pay a $120,000 fine and have their licences cancelled. The penalties stem from the same incident that led to a court decision against Hu in January, in which B.C. Supreme Court Justice Amy D. Francis found Hu had 'intentionally undermined' his client Pei Hua Zhong by purchasing for himself the Surrey home that Zhong had made an offer to buy. Francis' decision in the case describes Hu's conduct as 'deceptive and underhanded' – a description that is repeated in the consent order document published on the BCFSA website Friday. What happened The court case revolved around Zhong's attempts to purchase a property on 174 Street near 20 Avenue in Surrey. The one-acre parcel had an assessed value of just over $3 million for 2025, according to BC Assessment. 174 Street property in South Surrey The property at the centre of the lawsuit is seen in this 2011 photo from BC Assessment. ( Zhong met Hu in November 2017 and hired the Realtor to facilitate both the sale of his home on Poplar Drive and the purchase of a new home, according to the court decision. Through Hu, Zhong made two offers to purchase the 174 Street property. The first, for $2.1 million, was accepted, but expired when Zhong was unable to sell his home in time to raise the necessary funds for the down payment. While the first offer was expiring in late December 2017, Hu was in Las Vegas with his wife and another couple – Lingxia Tao and her husband Zhi Chen. According to the decision, what exactly was discussed between the parties in Las Vegas was disputed during the court proceedings, but the end result was that Tao made an offer on the 174 Street property for slightly less than $2.1 million, which was accepted, while Zhong made a new offer of $2.05 million, which was rejected. Two weeks later, Tao assigned her contract to purchase the property to Hu, who ultimately completed the transaction. Hu later sold the property in September 2021 for $3.35 million – a profit of more than $1.2 million over what he had paid when he assumed Tao's contract less than four years earlier. Francis ruled in Zhong's favour, ordering Hu to 'disgorge' his portion of the profits, a number that remained unspecified in the court decision because of ongoing litigation between Hu and Tao over their purported agreement to invest in real estate together. Regulator-imposed consequences The BCFSA consent order details these same circumstances, albeit with the names of the other parties and the address of the property redacted. According to the document, Hu's client (Zhong) learned that Hu was the owner of the property when he performed a title search in September 2021. Zhong filed his civil lawsuit in January 2022. In April of that year, he submitted a complaint to the BCFSA, the consent order indicates. The document notes that Hu made false statements to BCFSA investigators about his agreement with Tao and falsely claimed that he had offered Zhong the opportunity to take the assignment of the contract to buy the 174 Street property. He later admitted during the trial that he had never told Zhong about the assignment. Hu also failed to notify the BCFSA when the B.C. Supreme Court judgment against him was issued earlier this year, according to the consent order. In the agreement, Hu admits to a lengthy list of conduct unbecoming of a licensee and professional misconduct, including: Failing to act honestly in providing real estate services Failing to disclose 'all known material information' to a client Failing to maintain the client's confidentiality Failing to act in the best interests of the client Failing to take reasonable steps to avoid a conflict of interest Failing to promptly and fully disclose a conflict of interest to a client Providing trading services outside of the brokerage with which he and his PREC were licensed Collecting funds in relation to the purchase of a property without promptly remitting the money to his brokerage Failing to keep the brokerage's managing broker informed of the assignment contract Failing to promptly notify the BCFSA of the court judgment Failing or refusing to co-operate with an investigation And making false or misleading statements in relation to an investigation Hu and his company admitted this misconduct and agreed to the cancellation of their licences. They are jointly required to pay the $120,000 fine within six months of signing the consent order agreement. 'Real estate licensees have an enshrined duty to act in the best interests of their client, and Hu's actions ran wholly contrary to that duty,' said Jon Vandall, the BCFSA's senior vice-president of compliance and enforcement, in a news release issued Friday. 'Hu undermined his own client for personal gain and demonstrated a clear disregard for the established ethical expectations for licensees. The significant penalty issued to Hu, including the outright cancellation of his real estate licence, reflects the severity of Hu's actions.'
CBC
34 minutes ago
- CBC
Beware of people impersonating animal protection officers in P.E.I., humane society warns
The P.E.I. Humane Society is warning Islanders that it's been getting reports of plain-clothed people claiming to be animal protection officers. The group says it's not sure why this is happening. CBC's Nicola MacLeod explains.
