R. v. Hadvick, 2024 YKCA 2, March 6, 2024, at paragraphs 69 and 70:

The statement regarding the second category—evidence unknown to the accused—is more difficult to assess, especially as the only issue about evidence not known to the accused in George concerned the evidence that the accused learned immediately after the sexual activity. However, it is my view that the statement was intended to provide clarification on the challenging question of the scope of evidence that may be relevant to the analysis under s. 150.1(4), and the proper approach to evidentiary issues that can arise under that section. Consideration of the two points (evidence arising after the sexual activity, and evidence unknown to an accused before the sexual activity) make it clear that the relevance of individual pieces of evidence is not as straightforward as it might first appear. The timing and purpose of individual items of evidence may allow such additional evidence to be admitted and considered in the analysis.

Accordingly, it is my view that the statement in George about evidence not known to the accused before the sexual contact was not so tangential to the Court’s decision as to be non-binding. It was intended to provide guidance and to be accepted as authoritative in respect of the scope of evidence that may be relevant to the analysis under s. 150.1(4). However, as I will explain below, I am of the view that the comments of the Court were not intended to permit triers of fact to consider a broad range of evidence unknown to the accused that would not be useful to the trier of fact in assessing the accused’s perception of the complainant’s age.