Mr. Michael Martin

During a multi-count indictment trial, the Crown sought to admit a handgun manual and receipt seized from the accused's residence.

This evidence was intended to corroborate the complainant's allegations regarding the accused's possession of firearms, despite a previously seized handgun from another location being excluded due to a Charter violation.

The court balanced the probative value of the manual and receipt against their prejudicial effect.

It found the probative value moderate, noting the evidence was not essential given other available corroborative evidence and the complainant's vague description of the handgun.

The prejudicial effect was deemed high, as it could invite speculation about the firearm's whereabouts, imply illegality where none existed (the accused was licensed), and risk unduly sidetracking the trial.

The court also applied the R. v. Calder test, concluding no change in circumstances justified admitting evidence related to a firearm previously excluded due to serious Charter breaches.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

The accused was tried for robbery, wearing a disguise with intent, and uttering threats arising from the robbery of a convenience store.

The central issue was identity, as the robbery itself and the elements of the offences were undisputed.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance video comparisons, similarities in gait and footwear, and testimony from a witness who claimed the accused confessed and possessed stolen items shortly after the robbery.

Although the witness had credibility concerns due to substance use and inconsistent statements, the court found substantial corroboration from independent evidence including details about stolen coins, cigarettes, the disguise used, and the clerk’s description.

Considering the totality of the evidence, the court concluded the identity of the robber was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.