The procedural point to emphasize is that if “other material” is to be admitted as evidence and included in a motion record, then there must be some rule that justifies its use as
evidence notwithstanding the absence of an affidavit.
 For example, in Martellacci (Re),16 Justice Newbould overruled a registrar in bankruptcy who had held that a report filed
by the trustee in bankruptcy was inadmissible evidence and that
the trustee was required to file a sworn affidavit if it wished to
proffer the evidence. Justice Newbould held that the report was
“other material” and that the registrar had erred because she ignored the common law rule from Montor Business Corp. (Trustee
of) v. Goldfinger17 that a trustee’s report is admissible evidence
without a covering affidavit.
 The motion record is about the affidavit evidence and the
proper other material. In the immediate case, the academic article does not qualify as other material.
 For the above reasons, the plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
 If the parties cannot agree about the matter of costs, they
may make submissions in writing beginning with the plaintiffs’
submissions within 20 days of the release of these reasons for decision followed by Mr. Monk’s submissions within a further 20 days.
Her Majesty the Queen v. R.V.
[Indexed as: R. v. V. (R.)]
2018 ONCA 547
Court of Appeal for Ontario, MacFarland, Watt and Paciocco JJ.A.
June 13, 2018
Criminal law — Sexual assault — Evidence — Complainant’s sexual
activity — Crown intending to rely on complainant’s pregnancy as evidence that accused sexually assaulted her — Application judge erring in
dismissing accused’s application under s. 276 of Code to cross-examine
complainant about whether she had sexual experiences with others that
could account for her pregnancy — Section requiring adequate identification of evidence proposed to be adduced not a particularized identification of instances of sexual activity — Proposed cross-examination
satisfying “specific instances of sexual activity” requirement in
s. 276(2)(a) — Application judge erring in balancing competing interests
16  O.J. No. 4230, 2014 ONSC 5188 (S.C.J.).
17  O.J. No. 1485, 75 C.B.R. (5th) 170 (S.C.J.).