2 total
Mistake of fact defence had an air of reality and went to the jury.
In this criminal jury trial ruling, the accused sought to have the defence of mistake of fact put to the jury on bid-rigging charges under s. 47(2) of the Competition Act.
The court held that whether the RFPs were calls for bids or tenders was a question of fact, not law, and applied the air of reality test to determine whether the defence should be left with the jury.
On the totality of the evidence, including uncertainty in the procurement documents and witness evidence, the court found an evidentiary foundation for an honest mistaken belief.
The jury was therefore permitted to consider the mistake of fact defence in relation to the nature of the RFPs.
Similar fact ruling granted only in part in multi-count bid-rigging trial.
In a criminal prosecution alleging bid-rigging and conspiracy arising from multiple federal government IT procurement processes, the Crown moved for a similar fact ruling permitting the jury to use evidence on one count across other counts against the same accused.
Applying the governing similar fact evidence framework, the court held that such evidence is presumptively inadmissible unless its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect and it is sufficiently connected to a live issue.
The court found minimal moral prejudice because the jury had already heard the impugned evidence, but concluded that significant differences among the three groups of procurements reduced the probative value of using the evidence across all procurements.
The motion was therefore granted only in part, limited to the CBSA RFPs and subject to further submissions after the defence evidence.
