The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that evidence about a complainant’s previous commercial sex work may be admissible in trials involving sexual services and human trafficking offences.
The unanimous decision in R. v. A.M., released October 16, 2026, said judges must assess the purpose and effect of the evidence rather than treating all information about a complainant’s past sexual activity as automatically excluded.
The ruling does not create a blanket right to introduce a complainant’s sexual history in court.
Table of Contents
What the Supreme Court decided
The case involved two men accused of acting as pimps for a woman who worked from a house they rented, among other locations, over a period of about two and a half years.
The men faced several charges involving sexual services and human trafficking, including advertising the woman’s sexual services for money, recruiting and controlling her, and receiving a material benefit from those services.
Before trial, the accused sought permission to question the complainant about her previous sex work.
They argued that the proposed questions would focus on the commercial and financial aspects of that work, including how it was advertised, rather than on intimate details about her sexual activity.
The trial judge concluded that section 276 of the Criminal Code applied and prevented that line of questioning.
Parts of the complainant’s earlier testimony about her work were also excluded.
The men were later convicted on several sexual services-related counts but acquitted of the human trafficking charges.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered new trials on the sexual services offences, finding that the trial judge had applied section 276 too broadly and had improperly restricted the proposed questioning.
The Crown appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
Why section 276 mattered
Section 276 of the Criminal Code limits the use of evidence about a complainant’s past sexual activity in certain criminal proceedings.
The provision is intended to prevent courts or juries from relying on two discredited assumptions: that a person who has previously engaged in sexual activity is more likely to have consented to the activity in question, or that the person is less worthy of belief.
The Supreme Court said those protections remain important, but held that not every piece of evidence involving a complainant’s prior sexual history is being used to support those myths.
In this case, the proposed evidence concerned the commercial nature of the complainant’s earlier work in the sex trade.
The accused intended to use it to argue that she had previously chosen to work in the sex trade voluntarily, rather than being recruited or exploited by them.
Justice Marie-France Moreau, writing for the court, said the evidence could be relevant to issues in the case without relying on the prohibited assumptions targeted by section 276.
The court therefore upheld the order for new trials on the sexual services offences.
What the ruling does not mean
The decision does not mean that evidence of past sexual activity will be admitted whenever an accused person says it is relevant.
Trial judges must still determine whether the evidence has a legitimate purpose, whether it is connected to an issue in the case and whether its admission would create unfair prejudice.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning distinguishes between evidence about the sexual nature of a complainant’s past and evidence about other aspects of past conduct, such as commercial arrangements, advertising or financial relationships.
That distinction will depend on the facts of each trial.
The court also emphasized that evidence cannot be used indirectly to revive the same stereotypes that section 276 was designed to prevent.
Questions about a complainant’s earlier work may still be rejected if they are aimed at suggesting that the complainant was more likely to consent, less credible or less deserving of protection because of that history.
What happens next in the case
The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves the new-trial order in place for the sexual services offences.
The decision does not determine whether the accused men will be convicted or acquitted when the matter returns to trial.
At the new trials, the judge will be responsible for managing the questioning and deciding which evidence can be heard within the limits set by the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
The ruling may also guide courts handling cases involving alleged pimping, sexual services advertising, recruitment, control and financial benefit.
Its practical effect will depend on how lower courts apply the distinction between evidence that addresses commercial conduct and evidence that invites prohibited reasoning about a complainant’s sexual history.
Why the decision matters for Canadian courts
The judgment provides a framework for handling evidence in prosecutions where the alleged exploitation is connected to commercial sex work.
It confirms that protective evidence rules must be applied carefully, without turning them into an automatic ban on every fact connected to a complainant’s previous work.
At the same time, the decision preserves the central purpose of section 276: preventing stereotypes about sexual behaviour from influencing findings about consent, credibility or exploitation.
For prosecutors, defence lawyers and trial judges, the key question will be why the evidence is being introduced and how a jury could reasonably use it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court of Canada decide in R. v. A.M.?
The court ruled that evidence about a complainant’s previous commercial sex work can be admissible in sexual services and human trafficking proceedings when it serves a legitimate, non-prejudicial purpose.
Does the ruling allow all evidence about a complainant’s sexual history?
No. Section 276 continues to restrict evidence that relies on stereotypes about consent or credibility, and judges must assess the purpose and potential prejudice of the evidence.
What charges were involved in the case?
The accused faced charges including advertising sexual services for money, recruiting and controlling the complainant, receiving a material benefit from sexual services and human trafficking offences.
Why were new trials ordered?
The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had applied section 276 too broadly and had improperly prevented questioning about the commercial aspects of the complainant’s previous work.
What happens next for the accused?
The sexual services charges will return for new trials. The Supreme Court’s decision does not determine the final outcome of those proceedings.
Fact-Checked: Key facts were checked against the Supreme Court of Canada’s October 16, 2026 case brief and judgment announcement, along with the Criminal Code provision at issue.
Disclaimer: This article provides general news information and is not legal advice.