Law360 Canada ( June 2, 2022, 5:57 AM EDT) -- Appeal by IW from his conviction for three sexual offences. IW argued that the trial judge erred by failing to provide a “no probative value” instruction to the jury after the complainant’s outbursts, by permitting the Crown to lead a prior consistent statement, and in not instructing the jury on its limited use, and by failing to adequately correct the Crown’s misstatement of the facts relating to the timing of the alleged assaults. The complainant alleged that on New Year’s Eve of 2015, when she was 15, appellant had intercourse with her. She further alleged that at some point near the end of January or start of February 2016, she and the appellant began communication over text and Facebook messenger. She ended up going to the appellant’s residence in Brooklin and their sexual relationship began. The appellant acknowledged he had a sexual relationship with the complainant but denied it began before she turned 16 years old. Complainant turned 16 in mid-May 2016. At trial, the complainant had several outbursts. After the first outburst, the jury was immediately excused. The appellant then brought a mistrial application, which was denied. The trial judge did, however, provide a limiting instruction....