The Crown applied to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct by the accused, specifically a prior conviction for assault, threatening death, and failing to comply with bail conditions.
The accused was charged with assault, unlawful confinement, choking, threatening death, and mischief involving the same complainant.
The court considered whether the probative value of the similar fact evidence outweighed its potential prejudice under the framework established in R. v. Handy.
The court found that while there were similarities between the prior conduct and current allegations, the five-year time gap, the presence of mental health issues at the time of the prior incident (which were not evident in 2013), and the inference being based on a single prior act rendered the probative value insufficient to outweigh potential prejudice.
The application was dismissed.
