Several accused charged with robbery with a firearm, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and attempted murder brought applications to exclude or edit numerous text and BBM messages that the Crown sought to introduce at trial.
The applicants argued the messages constituted impermissible similar fact evidence and risked unfair prejudice by suggesting involvement in multiple robberies.
Applying the principles governing similar fact evidence from R. v. Handy, the court assessed whether the probative value of each message outweighed its prejudicial effect.
The court held that references suggesting multiple robberies or unrelated criminal activity should generally be edited or excluded, while messages directly relevant to the planning or execution of the charged robbery were admissible.
The court therefore ordered specific edits or exclusions for numerous messages and permitted others with potential limiting instructions to the jury.
