How has the court considered the potential prejudicial effect of excluding or excluding evidence of abuse in a sexual assault case?

Barrow J. considered the potential prejudicial effect from several perspectives. 1. Prejudice to the party opposing the admission of the evidence: Prejudice may be found if the evidence is of uncertain provenance, is incomplete or capable of manipulation. This concern did not arise on the facts. 2. Prejudice to the trial process: Prejudice may be found where the cost of admitting the evidence is out of proportion to its probative value. In two precedent cases, the sheer volume of recorded material made the taped evidence inadmissible (i.e. 20 hours of tape recording in Seddon v. Seddon, [1994] B.C.J. No. 1729 (S.C.), and recordings made over a period of three and a half years in Rawlek v. Rawlek, [2003] B.C.J. No. 2231 (S.C.)). 3. Prejudice to the administration of justice: Where, for example, the secret interception of a private communication is a criminal offence. Section 184(1) of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence to intercept a private communication “by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device.” In Mathews, the diary and card were not obtained in a manner that constituted a criminal offence. Indeed, the diary and the card would have been required to be produced in a List of Documents or on request at an examination for discovery. 4. Prejudice that would arise by excluding the evidence: As Barrow J. stated at para. 56, there is little doubt that the exclusion of evidence that is reliable and shows physical abuse of a child, for example, would harm the reputation of the administration of justice. Thus, the best interests of the child test can militate in favour of the admission of evidence that reveals seriously alienating behaviour of a parent.