Sexual-assault cases represent some of the most high-stakes and legally complex matters in the criminal justice system. These cases often involve sensitive and deeply personal evidence, conflicting testimonies, and nuanced procedural and evidentiary rules. Because of these intricacies, having a seasoned criminal-defence lawyer with specific experience in sexual-assault matters is not merely helpful — it can be essential to achieving a fair outcome.

The Complexity of Sexual-Assault Trials: More Than Meets the Eye

There are several reasons why sexual-assault trials are legally complicated:

• Evidentiary rules: Sexual-history evidence — including past sexual activity or inactivity — is strictly regulated under the criminal law and common law. Courts must ensure that such evidence is not used to perpetuate stereotypes or unfairly prejudice credibility assessments.
• Procedural safeguards: Before any sexual-history evidence is admitted, a pre-trial hearing (a “voir dire”) is often required to probe admissibility. Failure to follow these safeguards can render convictions unsafe.
• Risk of unfair assumptions: Without rigorous defence advocacy, evidence about a complainant’s prior sexual history (or their sexual inactivity) may influence jurors in ways unrelated to the facts — undermining fairness.
• High stakes: Conviction for sexual assault can have life-altering consequences: years in prison, criminal record, reputational harm, even employment or immigration implications.

Given these factors, it is obvious that skilled knowledge of criminal procedure, evidentiary rules (especially under the statutory and common-law regimes for sexual-history evidence), and trial strategy is critical.

What the Recent Decision in R. v. Kinamore Shows

The recent ruling in R. v. Kinamore demonstrates how dynamic—and pivotal—the law in this area can be. On June 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued a landmark judgment: the Court clarified that evidence of a complainant’s sexual inactivity qualifies as “sexual-history evidence,” and is thus presumptively inadmissible unless first vetted through a voir dire.

In Mr. Kinamore’s case, certain social-media messages between him and the complainant — including references to her virginity and sexual disinterest — were admitted at trial by the Crown without a voir dire. The trial judge based her decision largely on that evidence and found him guilty. The SCC unanimously found that to be an error: because the messages concerned sexual inactivity, they should not have been admitted without first holding a voir dire. As a result, the Court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

This case underscores that even apparently straightforward social-media messages can constitute “sexual-history evidence” — and that missteps in applying evidentiary rules can upend entire trials.

Why Having an Experienced Defence Lawyer Is Not Optional

Given the evolving state of the law and the seriousness of sexual-assault proceedings, a defence lawyer must do more than just show up — they must:

• Understand and anticipate shifting legal doctrines (like the expanded definition of “sexual history” post-Kinamore).
• Use procedural safeguards wisely, including asking for voir dires to challenge improper evidence.
• Mitigate the risk of prejudice to the accused by identifying and excluding evidence rooted in stereotypes or irrelevant assumptions.
• Provide informed, strategic advice early — ideally before any statements are given to police, to avoid missteps that could irreparably harm the defence.

Mr. Vayeghan’s Involvement in the Kinamore Case at the BC Court of Appeal

At Vayeghan Litigation, we appreciate how important it is to have defence counsel who both understand the law deeply and can lead challenging appeals at the highest level.

For example, in the recent R. v. Kinamore case, Mr. Vayeghan served as lead counsel at the British Columbia Court of Appeal and advanced the position that evidence of a complainant’s sexual communications constituted “sexual history” and therefore required a voir dire before the Crown could use this evidence at trial. Although the Court of Appeal did not accept this argument at the time, the Supreme Court of Canada later adopted the very position Mr. Vayeghan had advanced at the BC Court of Appeal—ultimately quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial. To avoid any misunderstanding, Mr. Vayeghan did not appear as counsel before the Supreme Court of Canada in this matter.

Conclusion: For Sexual Assault Charges — Experience Matters

Sexual-assault law is not static. As demonstrated by R. v. Kinamore, fundamental principles — including what counts as “sexual history” — can shift. Evidence that might once have been admitted may now be excluded.

Given the serious consequences of a conviction, and the legal complexity involved, hiring an experienced criminal-defence lawyer who focuses on sexual-assault law is not a luxury — it is a necessity.

At Vayeghan Litigation, we combine deep substantive knowledge, trail-tested courtroom advocacy, and a commitment to rigorous defence. If you are facing sexual-assault allegations, or wish to understand your rights and options, we are ready to help.

Contact Vayeghan Litigation today for a confidential consultation and take the first step toward protecting your future.
Call us at 778-653-3995 or email law@mvlitigation.com now to discuss your case.