The Crown sought a pre‑trial ruling on the admissibility of recorded statements made by the accused to an undercover police officer during a covert investigation into the death of the accused’s partner.
The defence argued the statements had minimal probative value, were inconsistent with forensic evidence, and constituted highly prejudicial bad character evidence.
Applying the probative‑prejudicial balancing framework for similar fact and bad character evidence, and considering reliability concerns discussed in undercover confession jurisprudence, the court excluded statements in which the accused discussed methods of killing and disposing of a body.
Those statements were found to have little relevance and significant prejudicial effect.
However, statements reflecting hostility and animus toward the deceased were admitted as probative evidence of motive.
