Bob is charged with sexually assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Bob's defence is that she consented to the sexual activity, and says that after they broke up they remained friends. As part of that friendship they continued to engage in occasional sexual activity. Bob wants the jury to know about the "friends with benefits" relationship, in order to put the incident in context. The Crown says that Bob should not be allowed to call such evidence, or to make any reference at all to the fact that he had previously, on many occasions, had consensual sex with the complainant. Please name the Supreme Court of Canada decision that answers this question, and state whether the evidence would be allowed or not