Law360 Canada (November 16, 2022, 6:35 AM EST) -- Appeal by Matthew from conviction in provincial court of single count of sexual assault. It was common ground that Matthew and the complainant arranged to meet at the complainant’s house, watched television in the basement and engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. Their versions of events diverged at that point. The complainant testified that after the consensual sexual activity, they went back upstairs and talked for about an hour. Then Matthew suggested they go back down to the basement. When they returned to the basement, the complainant described a non-consensual sexual encounter, during which Matthew kissed her, and had sexual intercourse with her while she strenuously tried to resist and repeatedly told him to stop. On the other hand, Matthew testified that after the consensual sexual intercourse, they had a brief conversation in the basement, went upstairs to the deck where they parted on good terms. He denied the hour-long conversation on the front deck and denied a second sexual encounter. On appeal, Mathew contended the judge erred by admitting evidence of prior sexual conduct without holding a voir dire and reversing the burden of proof by finding that his failure to adduce corroborative evidence adversely affected his reliability....