EP#202 | The 7-Day Rule That Makes No Sense in Real Courtrooms

EP#202 | The 7-Day Rule That Makes No Sense in Real Courtrooms Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord A year after the Supreme Court of Canada’s June 13, 2025 decision in **R. v. Kinamore (2025 SCC 19)**, the Not on Record crew checks the scoreboard: did Crown attorneys actually start bringing **voir dire** applications before leading **Crown-led sexual history evidence**, including **sexual inactivity**, **virginity**, and “lack of sexual interest” messaging? The Court said the screening process should *mirror* the **s. 276 Criminal Code** regime the defence is already forced to navigate, aiming for basic **parity** and fair notice so an accused can know the case to meet. In practice, the lawyers describe a system where the defence files applications months in advance, while the Crown often arrives late (or not at all), leaving defence counsel to “pre-bake” the Crown’s Kinamore issues into their own materials just to keep trials from derailing. They also get into the messy realities this decision was trying to fix: disclosure that contains sexual history references, whether a complainant can “waive” the process (spoiler: the Court says the application still has to happen), how credibility fights get boxed into absurd technicalities (yes, even arguing about “flirting”), and why timeline rules like “seven days” can be fantasy-land in real criminal litigation. **Not legal advice.** This episode is practical commentary on Canadian criminal procedure, evidence, and what Kinamore is changing (and not changing) in courtrooms. Key case referenced: R. v. Kinamore, 2025 SCC 19 (released June 13, 2025).