2 total
The Crown's application to admit a five-year-old prior conviction as similar fact evidence was dismissed due to insufficient probative value.
The Crown applied to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct by the accused, specifically a prior conviction for assault, threatening death, and failing to comply with bail conditions.
The accused was charged with assault, unlawful confinement, choking, threatening death, and mischief involving the same complainant.
The court considered whether the probative value of the similar fact evidence outweighed its potential prejudice under the framework established in R. v. Handy.
The court found that while there were similarities between the prior conduct and current allegations, the five-year time gap, the presence of mental health issues at the time of the prior incident (which were not evident in 2013), and the inference being based on a single prior act rendered the probative value insufficient to outweigh potential prejudice.
The application was dismissed.
Grievance regarding wage reclassification dismissed on preliminary grounds of res judicata and lack of prima facie case.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by reclassifying an employee to a lower wage category.
The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the matter was res judicata as two prior Board decisions had already interpreted the identical collective agreement provision to apply only to lay-offs, not reclassifications.
The Board agreed, finding that the prior decisions were binding and that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.
The grievance was dismissed.
