During a jury trial for fraud, personation, and forgery, the Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence across different counts involving different complainants.
The defence conceded the application for counts involving the Gametronics investment scheme, which shared a highly similar modus operandi.
However, the court dismissed the application for counts involving a GIC and an RRSP, finding insufficient similarity and concluding that the prejudicial effect of propensity reasoning outweighed any probative value.
