Pre‑trial evidentiary ruling in a fraud prosecution concerning whether the Crown could introduce evidence of prior dealings between the accused and a financial brokerage, as well as alleged post‑offence conduct.
The Crown sought to admit background facts relating to the accused’s business relationship with the brokerage, evidence of financial difficulties suggesting motive, and alleged threatening conduct.
The court applied the probative value versus prejudicial effect analysis governing prior discreditable conduct and narrative evidence.
Background evidence concerning the accused’s relationship with the brokerage and events surrounding a promotional dinner attended by the complainant was admitted, as it was relevant to the complainant’s understanding of the accused’s representations.
Evidence of a prior debt, certain customer complaints, and an alleged threat was excluded or restricted due to limited probative value and significant risk of moral prejudice.