Jennifer Halajian

During a murder trial involving multiple accused, the Crown brought a motion asking the court to reconsider a prior evidentiary ruling admitting a hearsay statement from a former girlfriend of an alleged alternate suspect.

The Crown argued new evidence from two witnesses and digital communications demonstrated a strong motive for the declarant to fabricate the statement.

The court held that the new evidence constituted a material change in circumstances permitting reconsideration of the earlier ruling.

However, applying the relaxed threshold reliability standard applicable to defence evidence, the judge concluded the statement retained some reliability and should remain admissible.

The Crown was permitted to call reply evidence from the new witnesses to challenge the credibility and reliability of the hearsay statement.

During a murder trial involving a home invasion, the accused advanced a third party suspect defence and sought to question the alleged third party about prior criminal charges that had not resulted in convictions.

The court considered whether such evidence was admissible as disposition evidence and whether it could be used to impeach the credibility of the defence’s own witness.

The court held that questioning a witness about prior charges without convictions was improper because it undermines the presumption of innocence and has little probative value.

However, the court found that the underlying facts of certain prior incidents involving firearms and violent activity could be admissible where relevant to the issue of identity and the third party suspect defence.

The court therefore permitted questioning about the underlying facts of most incidents, except a 1996 event involving a knife and pepper spray which lacked sufficient probative value.

In a multi‑accused murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce a PowerPoint presentation prepared by an Ontario Provincial Police analyst summarizing extensive cell phone records already entered in evidence.

Defence counsel objected, arguing the presentation was redundant, prejudicial, and effectively allowed the Crown to present its theory of the case twice.

The court held that the PowerPoint itself was not evidence but an illustrative aid reorganizing evidence already admitted.

Although useful and reliable, its probative value was outweighed by prejudice arising from duplication, significant trial time, and the unfair advantage of allowing the Crown to present its theory through a witness before closing submissions.

The court excluded the presentation from evidence but permitted the Crown to use it in closing argument and ordered the Crown to disclose the presentation to defence counsel in editable PowerPoint format.

During a joint trial for first-degree murder and attempted murder, the jury reported that a juror's spouse had been attending the proceedings and texting the juror information about the case, which was then shared with other jurors.

Two of the accused brought an application for a mistrial.

The court conducted an inquiry, questioning each juror individually, and determined that the information imparted was innocuous, primarily concerning scheduling delays and a witness's appearance.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding that the improper contact did not cause actual prejudice or irreparably taint the appearance of justice and fairness.

During a joint murder trial involving five accused, one accused (Mylvaganam) sought to introduce an alternate suspect defence, which included propensity evidence against a co-accused (Carty).

The trial judge prematurely ruled on the admissibility of this propensity evidence without a full evidentiary record or complete submissions.

Carty brought an application for severance, arguing the premature ruling gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the ruling was premature, a fully informed reasonable person would not apprehend bias, as the error could be remedied by conducting a proper and fulsome voir dire on the propensity evidence.

During a multi‑accused murder trial, one accused sought leave to introduce alternate suspect evidence implicating an uncharged third party.

The proposed evidence consisted primarily of hearsay statements allegedly made by that third party to former partners confessing involvement in the offence.

The court considered the admissibility of the statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, focusing on necessity and threshold reliability.

The judge concluded that the utterances possessed sufficient reliability and could be admitted, provided the declarant was first called and denied making them in accordance with the K.G.B. procedure.

The court further held that related propensity evidence affecting a co‑accused could be admitted with appropriate limiting instructions.

In a multi‑accused murder trial arising from a home invasion in which one victim was killed and another survived, a co‑accused sought to exclude a text message sent on the day of the offence stating “To after work ok will be game time.” The moving party argued the text was an ambiguous fragment whose meaning could only be determined through speculation and should therefore be excluded under the probative value versus prejudicial effect analysis.

The court distinguished authorities dealing with incomplete overheard utterances, finding the text was a stand‑alone statement capable of interpretation when viewed alongside earlier communications among the accused.

When considered in context with prior text exchanges suggesting planning activity, the message was capable of supporting an inference relevant to the identity and involvement of the accused.

The court held the text possessed probative value that outweighed any prejudicial effect and declined to exclude it.

The Crown sought to admit a videotaped police statement made by the accused following a high-risk arrest for murder and attempted murder.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive circumstances, including the manner of arrest, relentless questioning, and the accused's physical illness.

The court applied the common law confessions rule and found the statement voluntary for the first three hours and twenty-three minutes, as the accused was able to make a meaningful choice to speak or remain silent.

However, the court found a reasonable doubt as to voluntariness for the remainder of the interview, as the accused became visibly ill and unable to continue.

The statement was ruled partially admissible.

The Crown sought to admit a videotaped police statement made by the accused during a homicide investigation.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the statement on the grounds that it was involuntary and obtained in breach of s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Applying the confessions rule from R. v. Oickle, the court assessed whether threats, inducements, oppression, lack of an operating mind, or police trickery undermined voluntariness.

The court found the police interview tactics—including accusatorial questioning, references to investigative techniques, and moral appeals—did not overbear the accused’s will and did not amount to improper inducements or oppressive conduct.

The court further held that the accused was not psychologically detained prior to arrest under the framework in R. v. Grant and R. v. Suberu, and therefore her right to counsel under s. 10(b) was not breached.

The November 22 statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.