Law360 Canada ( July 31, 2019, 1:47 PM EDT) -- Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal setting aside the accused’s conviction for sexual interference and ordering a new trial. The complainant testified that she was a virgin at the time of the assault. The Prosecution introduced evidence of her subsequent pregnancy and the approximate date of conception to support the complainant’s testimony that she was sexually assaulted by the accused. The accused denied the allegations and sought to question the complainant as to whether anyone else could have caused the pregnancy. The application judge ruled that the accused was not permitted to ask whether the complainant had engaged in any other sexual activity because the accused had no evidence of “specific instances of sexual activity”, one of the requirements of s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code. The accused was, however, permitted to cross-examine the complainant about her claim that she was a virgin at the time of the assault. After the voir dire and prior to trial, the application judge invoked s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code and the trial continued before another judge. The trial judge declined the accused’s request to relitigate the s. 276 application. He held that where a trial was continued by another judge, s. 669.2 did not provide for the reconsideration of pretrial motions decided by the previous judge. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that it was patently unfair for the Crown to rely on the pregnancy as confirming the complainant’s story while preventing the accused from challenging this inference....