D. Maylor

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.

The accused sought review of a detention order arising from serious firearm and drug charges linked to storage lockers allegedly under his control.

The court considered whether the earlier bail review judge erred in assessing the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code, and whether allegations of police misconduct and fresh evidence amounted to a material change in circumstances.

The court held that any shortcomings in the earlier release analysis did not undermine the continued justification for detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds, given the seriousness of the charges, evidence connecting the accused to the lockers and firearms, and public safety concerns.

The alleged fresh evidence was found not credible, while subsequent DNA evidence strengthened the prosecution’s case.

The application was dismissed.