On a Crown evidentiary motion in a joint criminal trial, the court considered whether parole-source evidence linking one accused to a cell phone and related biographical information was admissible.
The court held the evidence had high probative value because the cell tower data was a major pillar of the Crown case and the accused's likely possession of the phone was a key circumstantial link.
Although the evidence carried some moral prejudice by revealing the accused was on parole, the jury would not learn the underlying offences and a limiting instruction could reduce prejudice.
The court rejected the Crown's submission that anticipated character attacks on a complainant supported admission, but still ruled the evidence admissible and encouraged counsel to prepare an agreed statement of facts to minimize prejudice.
