Latest news with #DustinKinamore
Vancouver Sun
10 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Supreme Court of Canada quashes B.C. sex conviction, extends 'rape shield' law
The Supreme Court of Canada quashed a sexual-assault conviction against a B.C. man in a precedent-setting decision that strengthened the 'rape shield' law, ruling that even a complainant's lack of a sexual past can't be brought up in court. In a 9-0 unanimous decision released Friday, the court overturned a decision by B.C.'s Appeal Court in which Dustin Kinamore was found guilty of one count of sexual assault. The top court ordered a new trial. The B.C. Prosecution Service is reviewing the decision before deciding if it will be retried, said spokeswoman Damienne Darby in an email. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'The decision brings needed guidance,' including that such evidence needs to be approved by a judge before it is introduced at a trial, she said, adding such evidence can, if it meets certain criteria, still be included at trial. The decision would affect any current trials but she wasn't aware of any in jeopardy because of the ruling, she said. The B.C. Supreme Court and the Appeal Court had both allowed prosecutors to introduce the complainant's texts, which were sexual in nature but also told Kinamore that she did not want to have sex with him. Section 276 of Canada's Criminal Code, known as the rape shield law, limits the defence's use of evidence about a complainant's sexual history in court. The trial and appeal court judges had ruled that the prosecution's use of the complainant's sexts, which included that she was a virgin, weren't subject to Section 276 because they weren't about sexual activity but about sexual inactivity. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed, concluding prosecution 'applications are subject to the same substantive admissibility and procedural requirements that apply to defence-led evidence,' law, wrote Chief Justice Richard Wagner. It said a complainant's sexual inactivity can 'evoke distinct myths and stereotypes that these rules seek to eliminate.' Kinamore's lawyer, Matt Nathanson, said in a text that he was pleased with the ruling and that its significance goes far beyond his case and has 'broken new ground' on sexual assault law that promotes 'consistency and fairness' for both parties because the prosecution has to apply to introduce that evidence in the same way that the defence does. He said Section 276 has long recognized that myths and stereotypes about complainants shouldn't be used to attack their credibility and now, 'for the first time,' the court says 'inverse' myths and stereotypes shouldn't be used to 'unfairly enhance their credibility either.' It is wrong to suggest complainants are more likely to have consented because of sexual history, and 'it is now wrong to suggest that a lack of previous sexual activity means they are less likely to have consented,' he said. Kinamore, then 22, met the complainant, then 16, in May 2020 and texted each other for months, up to Aug. 3, 2020, when they met at his apartment, according to the decision. She said he sexually assaulted her, and he said the sexual activity was consensual and didn't go as far she said it did because he stopped when she said to stop, it said. At trial, the prosecution introduced text exchanges, some explicitly sexual, without having a hearing known as a voir dire to test their admissibility. In many of them, she made it clear she wasn't interested in a sexual relationship with the accused and some referred to her virginity, and both the prosecution and the defence relied on the evidence, Wagner's judgment said. The Appeal Court ruled the texts were admissible because the complainant's messages expressing she wasn't interested in sex 'fell outside the exclusionary rule governing a complainant's sexual history,' according to Wagner's decision. In dismissing that, Wagner wrote that inadmissible evidence was used by the trial judge in her reasons to assess the credibility of the accused and the complainant and she 'relied heavily on this evidence in her reasons for finding Mr. Kinamore guilty.' A new trial was needed because 'her error was not harmless,' Wagner wrote. Relying on a complainant's past sexual inactivity 'remains grounded in false assumptions' that 'undermine the fairness of a trial by distorting its truth-seeking function,' he said. Screening evidence protects the complainant's dignity and privacy, he said. He also said the 'increasing complexity of sexual offence trials' add to the overburdened system and his ruling would will 'assist in minimizing unnecessary cost and delay.' Hilla Kerner of the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter said it's unfortunate in this case because the conviction was overturned, but she welcomed the guidance from the higher court to speed up long trials. Consent is at the core of any sexual assault case, Dalya Israel of the Salal Sexual Violence Support Group, formerly Women against Violence Against Women, said in a text. 'When courts focus on context over consent, even well-meaning approaches, including those led by the Crown, can unintentionally reinforce the very myths the legal system is meant to reject,' she said.
CTV News
a day ago
- CTV News
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.
Toronto Sun
a day ago
- Toronto Sun
High court overturns B.C. sex assault conviction, clarifies 'confusion' over evidence
Published Jun 13, 2025 • 1 minute read Supreme Court of Canada, Friday, March 29, 2024. Photo by Ashley Fraser / Postmedia 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. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account 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. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 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.' World World Canada Canada Toronto & GTA
CTV News
a day ago
- CTV News
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.
