When Good Character Evidence Cuts Both Ways: R v TU and Sexual Offence Allegations Against Children

People accused of sexual offences often want to show the jury who they really are. Family and friends may be willing to testify that the accused is a loving parent or grandparent who would never harm a child. That evidence is admissible, but in cases involving children it comes with a caution that can limit how much it helps. In R v TU, 2026 ONCA 680, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a conviction for sexual interference and confirmed that this caution can apply even where others may have been nearby when the offence allegedly happened.

What Happened

TU was tried by a jury on two counts involving his granddaughter: sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching. The allegations covered three incidents from her childhood. She disclosed one of them when she was about seven or eight. She disclosed the other two at 14. She was 18 when she testified.

TU testified and denied the allegations. The defence called five other witnesses, mostly family members. They described him as a loving, caring grandfather who was not the "kind of person" who would do what was alleged.

The jury acquitted TU of invitation to sexual touching and convicted him of sexual interference. TU appealed.

What Is Good Character Evidence?

An accused person may call evidence of their good character, such as their reputation or the way they are known to behave. The jury can use this evidence for two purposes. It can bear on propensity, meaning whether the accused is the kind of person likely to have committed the offence. It can also bear on credibility, meaning whether the accused's own testimony is more believable.

In R v Profit, [1993] 3 SCR 637, the Supreme Court of Canada observed that sexual abuse of children usually happens in private. For that reason, it is rarely reflected in a person's reputation in the community. A good reputation may even help a perpetrator avoid suspicion. Juries in these cases are therefore often told that good character evidence carries less weight on the question of propensity. This is known as a Profit instruction.

The Court's Decision

Justice Coroza wrote for a unanimous panel that also included Justices Zarnett and Rahman. The court dismissed the appeal. It stressed that jury instructions are reviewed as a whole, in the context of the trial. They need to be adequate, and they do not need to be perfect.

The "semi-private" argument. The defence pointed to evidence that the swing incident may have happened shortly after a family barbecue, with relatives close by. It argued that the Profit instruction should not apply to offences in "semi-private" settings. The court disagreed. It held that there is no bright-line rule, and that the Profit instruction is not a switch that is either "on" or "off" (para 46).

What matters instead is how the character evidence relates to the circumstances of the alleged offence. As the court explained, evidence of how someone behaves around family may say something about how they would act when family might be watching. It says little about how they would act when they believe no one is watching (para 48). The court also noted that whether a person believes they are unobserved can change in an instant.

In this case, the evidence about how private the shed was pointed both ways. The trial judge left that question to the jury. She told them that if they accepted the evidence placing the incident near a family gathering, other people were likely nearby, and that the weight of the character evidence was for them to decide. The Court of Appeal found this adequate.

Propensity versus credibility. The defence also argued that the jury should have been told expressly that the reduced weight applied only to propensity, not to TU's credibility. The court rejected this argument. The trial judge had explained both purposes of the evidence and had tied the Profit caution to propensity alone. The court added that where the only credibility issue is the central allegation itself, the two purposes are largely inseparable, and a separate instruction is not required (paras 56–57).

Why This Decision Matters

R v TU clarifies that the Profit instruction is not limited to offences alleged to have happened behind closed doors. The more public the setting, the more relevant character evidence may become. However, the defence cannot avoid the caution simply by showing that others were nearby. The real question is whether the character evidence actually says something about the conduct alleged.

Our Perspective

This decision shows that good character evidence can be a double-edged tool in cases involving children. Once it is called, the jury may be told that sexual offences against children are often committed in private and can even be enabled by a good reputation. That caution can weaken, or sometimes undercut, the very point the defence is trying to make. In our view, the decision to call character evidence in these cases deserves careful thought. The defence should look closely at the nature of that evidence and at the specific allegation, rather than treating character evidence as an automatic benefit.

What This Means If You Are Facing Charges

If you are accused of a sexual offence involving a child, friends and family may want to vouch for you, and their support matters. Whether that support should become evidence at trial is a strategic decision. The answer depends on what the witnesses can actually say, where and how the offence is alleged to have happened, and how the jury is likely to be instructed. These are questions to work through with your lawyer well before trial.