Yes, Canada now has kangoroo courts with different standarts and special ''education'' to judges for accusations of sexual crimes.

''Education'' such as ''just because the accused can prove via text messages the accuser kept pursuing him for sexual encounters after the alleged rape dosen't mean anything.'' That evidence might also be banned from trial.

Court guidelines to tip-toe around suggestion that the accuser might have wanted it because ''OMG THAT'S SAYING SHE WANTED TO BE RAPED!''.

Basically a presumption of guilt ( they frame it as ''believing victims who come forward'' ) and a re-interpretation of every inconsistency, incorrect/impossible descriptions of events, lie or further pursuing or intimacy by the accuser, as a result of ''trauma''.

So the courts are teaming with the prosecution coaching the accuser... during the trial.

One guy was accused of rape and the medically-documented fact that the accuser was a pathological liar was not allowed to be mentionned at the trial. I think the accused won on appeal overturning his conviction.

All evidence presented in court has to be avaliable to both the prosecution and the defense. That's normal. Well unless you're the feds arguing ''national security'', then the accused sometimes isn't even told what he's accused-of, or shown evidence. ''Trust us bro-judge.''