Supreme Court of Canada to examine role of rape shield law in sexual services case

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada will look at the application of the rape shield law in the case of two individuals accused of acting as pimps for a woman who worked from a house they rented.

Section 276 of the Criminal Code, known as the rape shield law, limits the use of evidence about a complainant’s sexual history in court proceedings.

The law is intended to avoid “twin-myth” reasoning — the idea that a complainant’s prior behaviour makes them more likely to have consented to the alleged sexual activity, or less worthy of being believed.

Two individuals, identified only as A.M. and M.P. due to a publication ban, faced human trafficking and sexual services offences arising out of their relationship with the complainant, known as A.K.

Section 276 requires a court to determine whether, and to what extent, evidence about a complainant’s sexual history may be admissible when the court is hearing a case about one or more of 14 different offences.

A.M. and M.P. were acquitted of human trafficking but were convicted of advertising, procuring and receiving material benefit from sexual services.

None of the offences with which the two individuals were charged are listed in section 276, and they argued on appeal that the trial judge erred in applying the provision to the proceedings.

They said their cross-examination of A.K. was improperly restricted and that evidence relevant to their defences was redacted from A.K.’s preliminary inquiry testimony.

A.M. and M.P. contended there were no privacy or dignity concerns with the evidence, as they were not relying on the sexual nature of A.K.’s activities. Rather, they said they were concerned with how she conducted the financial and advertising aspects of her work in the past and during the time she was involved with them.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed their appeal and ordered a new trial on the sexual services offences.

In its decision last year, the Court of Appeal said the evidence in question sought to counter the Crown’s portrayal of A.K. “as a vulnerable woman brought into the sex trade because of a drug dependency, and instead suggested that she sought out the appellants to improve her financial circumstances in part to feed her dependency.”

The Crown then took its case to the Supreme Court.

Following its usual practice, the top court gave no reasons for agreeing Thursday to hear the matter. No date for a hearing has been scheduled.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 22, 2025.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press