Sexual history has always been capable of being relevant in a sexual offence trial as long as it’s not tendered for the purpose of promoting the twin myths that the complainant is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity or is less worthy of being believed.

“While evidence of a complainant’s prior sex work should not be adduced to show a propensity to engage in sex work or sexual activity generally, such evidence may be relevant for other legitimate inferential purposes, as in the instant case,” (Justice) Moreau said in the decision. Moreau said it’s the job of the courts to “balance the elimination of myths and stereotypes in sexual offence cases with the accused’s right to full answer and defence.”

https://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/national_news/article_bae22083-e69b-5415-8a95-61de0b02637b.html