COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) and DONALD HICKEY (Respondent)
BEFORE: MORDEN, MacPHERSON and SIMMONS JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Christine Bartlett-Hughes
for the appellant
Marie Henein
for the respondent
HEARD: April 26, 2001
On appeal from acquittal by Justice C. H. Paris dated July 5, 1999.
E N D O R S E M E N T
RELEASED ORALLY: April 26, 2001
1The trial judge stated the correct principles relating to the admissibility of similar fact evidence. The essence of the appellant’s case is that he misapplied them to the evidence that was adduced on the voir dire – specifically, that he did not appreciate the potential legal significance of the proposed similar fact evidence. We are not persuaded that he erred in this respect.
2If there be any doubt on this, it was made clear in several statements made by the trial judge during counsels’ submissions before his ruling that he fully appreciated the Crown’s case and the legal significance of the proposed evidence. Having regard to the high degree of appellate deference that must be shown to trial judge’s rulings on the admissibility of similar fact evidence, we are satisfied that we should not interfere with the ruling in this case.
3For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.