What is the test for character evidence in a sexual assault case?

20 In the course of his ruling the trial judge made reference to the judgment of Iacobucci J. in R. v. B.(F.F.), 1993 CanLII 167 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697 at 730-31, 79 C.C.C. (3d) 112: The basic rule of evidence in Canada is that all relevant evidence is admissible unless it is barred by a specific exclusionary rule. One such exclusionary rule is that character evidence which shows only that the accused is the type of person likely to have committed the offence in question is inadmissible. As Lamer J. (as he then was) wrote for this court in Morris v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190, at pp. 201-2: Thus came about, as a primary rule of exclu­sion, the following: disposition, i.e., the fact that the accused is the sort of person who would be likely to have committed the offence, although relevant, is not admissible. As a result, evidence adduced solely for the purpose of proving disposition is itself inadmissible, or, to put it otherwise, evi­dence the sole relevancy of which to the crime committed is through proof of disposition, is inadmissible. However, evidence which tends to show that the accused is a person of bad character but which is also relevant to a given issue in the case does not fall within this exclusionary rule. As Lamer J. went on to write at p. 202: This is not to say that evidence which is relevant to a given issue in a case will of necessity be excluded merely because it also tends to prove disposition. Such evidence will be admitted subject to the judge weighing its probative value to that issue (e.g., identity), also weighing its prejudicial effect, and then determining its admissibility by measuring one to the other. Accordingly, evidence which tends to show bad character or a criminal disposition on the part of the accused is admissible if (1) relevant to some other issue beyond disposition or character, and (2) the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.