ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
TRAVARN ATKINSON
Before Justice R. Tomovski
Heard on June 29, 2026
Reasons on the Crown’s Similar Act Application released on July 17, 2026
Joshua White counsel for the Crown
Nicole DeBellefeuille ….………………… counsel for the accused Travarn Atkinson
I. INTRODUCTION
1Mr. Atkinson is charged in this jurisdiction with offences arising from a shooting, including attempted murder. Identity is the central issue at trial, which is scheduled to proceed before a judge sitting alone in the Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. Atkinson also faces charges arising from a separate shooting in another jurisdiction. As in this case, identity is the central issue in that proceeding. The Crown seeks to admit evidence of the other shooting as similar act evidence on the issues of identity and, to a lesser extent, possession.
2The Crown acknowledges that the similarities between the two shootings are not, by themselves, particularly strong or distinctive. It submits, however, that evidence arising from Mr. Atkinson’s arrest provides the necessary link between him and the Sioux Lookout shooting and, in turn, the Brampton shooting. According to the Crown, that linkage enhances the probative value of the proposed similar act evidence to the point that it outweighs any resulting prejudice.
3Mr. Atkinson opposes the application. He submits that the two shootings are marked more by their dissimilarities than their similarities and that any probative value of the proposed evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. He further submits that the evidence arising from his arrest does not provide the necessary link to the Sioux Lookout shooting and therefore does not materially enhance the probative value of the proposed similar act evidence.
4I dismiss the Crown’s application. The Crown has not established on a balance of probabilities that the probative value of the proposed similar act evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. The two shootings do not share sufficiently striking similarities, nor do they exhibit a number of significant similarities, to render it objectively improbable that the shootings were the product of coincidence rather than being committed by the same person. I further find that the evidence arising from Mr. Atkinson’s arrest does not provide a sufficient evidentiary link to overcome the lack of similarity between the shootings and tip the probative-prejudice balance in favour of admissibility.
5My reasons follow.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Brampton Shooting
6On March 9, 2024, at approximately 10:00 p.m., a shooting occurred outside a barbershop in Brampton. The victim had gone to the rear parking lot to smoke a cigarette when an unknown suspect, who had been observed in the area for approximately one hour beforehand, suddenly appeared and fired multiple shots. The victim was struck several times but survived. The suspect fled on foot and was not apprehended.
7Surveillance footage captured both the shooting and the suspect’s movements during the hour preceding it. Although the suspect’s face is not visible, the footage provides a general description of the suspect and his clothing.
8The suspect appears to be a light-complexioned Black male of thin build, in his late teens, and taller than the victim, who is 6’1”. He is wearing a black face mask, a black Nike Tech puffer jacket with the hood up, black pants, and black running shoes with reflective triangles on each side of the heel.
9As discussed later in these reasons, there is no evidence that the suspect had a tattoo on his right hand.
10Police recovered shell casings and an unspent cartridge from the scene. The cartridge appears to have been ejected following a misfire. The items were preserved for forensic examination.
B. The Sioux Lookout Shooting
11On August 16, 2024, at approximately 4:00 p.m., a shooting occurred In Sioux Lookout, a remote community in northwestern Ontario located approximately 2000 kilometres northwest of Brampton. A male and a female were seated in a vehicle near the rear entrance of an apartment complex when a female occupant held open a door and an unknown suspect emerged from the building and fired multiple shots at the vehicle.
12Although the surveillance footage itself was not filed on this application, I am advised that it captures the shooting. As with the Brampton footage, only a general description of the suspect and his clothing can be discerned.
13The suspect appears to be a Black male of thin build, in his late teens or early twenties, and taller than the female seen holding the door. He is wearing a blue surgical mask, a black Puma sweatshirt with the hood up, black pants, and black running shoes with reflective triangles on each side of the heel.
14Surveillance footage recorded at the same apartment complex three days earlier, on August 13, depicts a male whose physical appearance and clothing are generally consistent with those of the shooting suspect, including the distinctive running shoes.
15Unlike the shooter, who was wearing gloves, the male in the August 13 footage has a tattoo on his right hand depicting a money bag containing a dollar sign.
C. Mr. Atkinson’s Arrest
16On September 6, 2024, Mr. Atkinson was arrested at a residence in Sioux Lookout. He was located in a basement bedroom, crouched between a bed and a dresser. Police recovered a loaded firearm concealed beneath the mattress.
17At the time of his arrest, Mr. Atkinson was wearing a black windbreaker, a grey hooded sweatshirt, grey sweatpants, and black Nike Zums running shoes with reflective triangles on each side of the heel.
18It is agreed that Mr. Atkinson is a Black male who is currently 25 years old. The only photograph filed from his arrest is a photograph of his right hand. It depicts a tattoo of a money bag containing a dollar sign that appears very similar, if not identical, to the tattoo visible on the male shown in the August 13 Sioux Lookout footage.
19The firearm recovered during the arrest underwent forensic examination. The examination included a comparison of DNA recovered from the firearm with Mr. Atkinson’s DNA, as well as firearms-comparison testing involving the shell casings and cartridge recovered from the Brampton shooting.
20The Crown relies on two principal forensic conclusions to establish the identity of the Brampton shooting suspect. First, Mr. Atkinson’s DNA was detected on the firearm. Second, the firearm recovered during the arrest was the same firearm used in both the Brampton and Sioux Lookout shootings.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Similar Act Evidence – Legal Framework
21Evidence of misconduct extraneous to the offence charged is presumptively inadmissible. The Crown bears the onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the proposed similar act evidence is relevant to an issue at trial and that its probative value outweighs its potential prejudicial effect: R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56 at para. 55; R. v. Arp, 1998 CanLII 769 at para. 50; R. v. MacCormack, 2009 ONCA 72 at para. 48.
22The probative value of similar act evidence depends upon its strength, cogency, and nexus to an issue at trial: R. v. Ateyah, 2026 ONCA 287 at para. 15; R. v. Ukabam, 2024 SKCA 15 at para. 78. Cogency is assessed primarily by reference to the degree of similarity between the proposed similar act and the offence charged. The greater the similarity, and the fewer the distinguishing features, the greater the cogency of the evidence: Handy at para. 48; R. v. Perrier, 2004 SCC 56 at para. 21; MacCormack at para. 52; Ateyah at para. 18.
23Where similar act evidence is tendered to prove identity, the requisite cogency is established by striking similarities or by the cumulative effect of a number of significant similarities between the similar act and the offence charged: Arp at paras. 45, 65; MacCormack at paras. 50, 61; R. v. Woodcock, 2003 CanLII 6311 (ON CA) at para. 64. The similarities must be sufficiently compelling to render coincidence or mistaken identity objectively improbable: Arp at para. 45. Put differently, the acts must disclose a sufficiently distinctive pattern or unique trademark or signature to support the inference that they were committed by the same person: Arp at paras. 43, 50; Perrier at paras. 19-20; MacCormack at para. 51; Woodcock at para. 64; Ateyah at para. 18.
24Relevant considerations when assessing similarity include the proximity of the acts in time and place, the degree of similarity in their detail and circumstances, the number of occurrences, any distinctive features unifying the acts, any intervening events, and any other circumstance tending to support or undermine the alleged unity of the acts: Handy at para. 82; Perrier at para. 22; MacCormack at para. 53.
25The primary focus of the admissibility inquiry is the similarity of the acts themselves and the manner in which they were committed, rather than evidence linking the accused to them: Arp at paras. 49-50, 53-54; MacCormack at paras. 52, 57-58; Woodcock at paras. 77, 80, 120. Once it is determined that the same person likely committed both the similar act and the offence charged, it becomes necessary to consider whether there is evidence linking the accused to the similar act. Without such evidence, the proposed similar act evidence lacks relevance to the offence charged: Arp at paras. 53-54; Perrier at para. 23; MacCormack at paras. 59, 80-81; Woodcock at para. 81. Linkage evidence therefore operates as a precondition to admissibility. Nevertheless, the ultimate inquiry remains whether the acts themselves are sufficiently similar to justify admission of the similar act evidence: Woodcock at para. 82.
26Prejudice generally takes two forms. Moral prejudice arises where the trier of fact may reason that the accused's prior misconduct demonstrates a bad character or a propensity to commit the offence charged: Handy at para. 31; Arp at para. 41; Ukabam at para. 72; Ateyah at para. 8. Reasoning prejudice arises where the trier of fact may be distracted from the offence charged, assign undue weight to the similar act evidence, or be influenced by the additional complexity and time required to litigate it: Handy at paras. 31, 100; MacCormack at paras. 55, 67, 69. The risk of reasoning prejudice is particularly acute where the similar act evidence is extrinsic to the offence charged: MacCormack at para. 69. Ultimately, the concern is that the accused may be convicted because of past misconduct or disreputable character rather than the admissible evidence relating to the offence charged, or because the similar act evidence is given greater weight than it deserves: Arp at para. 40.
27Prejudice may also arise where the proposed similar act evidence is inflammatory or where the issue to which it is directed can be established through less prejudicial evidence: Handy at para. 83.
B. The Framework Applied – The Brampton and Sioux Lookout Shootings Compared Without Reference to the Sioux Lookout Arrest
28The strength of the proposed similar act evidence – that the Sioux Lookout shooting occurred – and its nexus to an issue at trial, namely the identity of the Brampton shooter, are not in dispute. The issue on this application is whether the proposed evidence possesses sufficient cogency to justify its admission.
29In my view, it does not. Considered on its own, the evidence relating to the Sioux Lookout shooting does not share sufficiently striking similarities, nor does it reveal a number of significant similarities, capable of rendering coincidence objectively improbable. As a result, its probative value does not outweigh its prejudicial effect.
30The two shootings share few meaningful similarities in either their circumstances or execution. The most notable similarity is that both suspects wore black running shoes with reflective triangles on each side of the heel.
31On their face, the shoes appear highly similar, if not identical. However, the evidentiary value of that similarity is limited. The shoes are not shown to be rare or uncommon. Rather, it is reasonable to infer that they appear to be a fairly common style of black athletic shoe readily available through retail outlets and online vendors. In the absence of evidence establishing their rarity, the similarity carries only modest weight.
32Against that limited similarity stand numerous and substantial dissimilarities:
Brampton Shooting
Sioux Lookout Shooting
Occurred at night at 10:00 p.m.
Occurred in the day at 4:00 p.m.
Occurred in winter in March
Occurred five months later in summer in August
Occurred in Brampton
Occurred approximately 2000km away in Sioux Lookout
Occurred outside a commercial establishment
Occurred outside a residential complex
Suspect remained outside the premises
Suspect emerged from within the complex
Suspect did not interact with anyone before the shooting
Suspect interacted with a female occupant before the shooting
Suspect waited for over an hour for the victim to appear
Suspect appeared only moments after the victims arrived
One victim (male)
Two victims (male and female)
Victim standing in a parking lot
Victims sitting in a vehicle
Suspect fled alone
Suspect rejoined the female occupant after the shooting
33These differences are neither minor nor incidental. Rather, they relate to virtually every significant aspect of the events, including their location, timing, execution, victimology, and aftermath. They substantially undermine any inference that both shootings were committed by the same person.
34There are also material differences in the suspects’ clothing. The Brampton suspect wore a black face mask and a black Nike Tech puffer jacket. The Sioux Lookout suspect wore a blue surgical mask and a black Puma hooded sweatshirt. Any similarities in clothing are largely generic. Apart from the running shoes, both suspects are wearing all black clothing without any distinctive features.
35Even the physical descriptions of the suspects are largely generic. Both are described only as young Black males of thin build.
36Such physical and clothing characteristics are insufficiently distinctive to meaningfully narrow the pool of potential suspects or reduce the risk of mistaken identification and wrongful conviction.
37I accept that the evidence of the Sioux Lookout shooting is sufficiently reliable and sufficiently connected to the issue of identity. However, it lacks the necessary cogency. Viewed cumulatively, the similarities between the two incidents fall well short of establishing the distinctive pattern, trademark, or signature contemplated by the authorities. The evidence therefore does not support the inference that the person who committed the Sioux Lookout shooting was also likely the person who committed the Brampton shooting.
38The admission of the proposed similar act evidence would also give rise to significant prejudice.
39The Sioux Lookout shooting constitutes serious and inflammatory extrinsic misconduct. Its admission would require the litigation of an uncharged incident and consume additional court time. More significantly, it would create a risk that the trier of fact – even in a judge-alone trial – might assign undue weight to extrinsic evidence that possesses limited probative value on the issue of the identity of the Brampton shooter, risking a mistaken identification and wrongful conviction.
40The prejudicial effect is heightened by the availability of less prejudicial evidence bearing directly on identity and possession. The Crown is already able to rely upon otherwise admissible evidence that Mr. Atkinson's DNA was detected on the firearm recovered in close proximity to him and that forensic testing established that the firearm was used in the Brampton shooting. The Crown may also rely on otherwise admissible evidence regarding the shoes Mr. Atkinson was wearing at the time of his arrest in comparison to the shoes worn by the Brampton shooter. Admission of the Sioux Lookout shooting would therefore add little probative value while introducing a substantial risk of prejudice.
41Similar concerns arise with respect to the tattoo evidence. There is a risk that undue weight could be attached to the similarity between the tattoo depicted on Mr. Atkinson's hand and the tattoo visible on the male captured in the August 13 surveillance footage in determining whether Mr. Atkinson committed not just the Sioux Lookout shooting but the Brampton shooting. That risk is compounded by the absence of any evidence that the Brampton shooter had a tattoo on his hand.
42In summary, the proposed similar act evidence lacks sufficient probative value to justify its admission. Beyond the apparent similarity in the suspects' shoes, which may be a common type of shoe, there is little similarity between the two incidents, the manner in which they were committed, or the descriptions of those who committed them. I am not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the similarities are sufficient to render coincidence objectively improbable. Accordingly, the proposed similar act evidence fails to meet the threshold for admissibility.
C. The Framework Applied – Whether the Evidence Arising from Mr. Atkinson’s Arrest Raises the Proposed Similar Act Evidence Above the Admissibility Threshold
43The Crown candidly acknowledges that the Brampton and Sioux Lookout shootings do not share striking similarities, nor the cumulative effect of a number of significant similarities. It submits, however, that evidence arising from Mr. Atkinson's arrest provides the necessary evidentiary link between him and the Sioux Lookout shooting and thereby supplies the missing cogency required to render the proposed similar act evidence admissible.
44I do not accept that submission.
45As Woodcock makes clear, linkage evidence is a precondition to admissibility and may, in limited circumstances, inform the admissibility analysis. However, the ultimate inquiry remains whether the similar act and the offence charged are sufficiently similar to render coincidence objectively improbable. Similarity remains the governing consideration: at para. 82.
46I have already concluded that the Brampton and Sioux Lookout shootings do not exhibit the degree of similarity necessary to satisfy that standard. The numerous and substantial differences between the two incidents overwhelm the limited similarities identified by the Crown. Put simply, the proposed similar act evidence falls well short of the requisite threshold for admissibility when the shootings themselves are compared.
47Nor does the evidence arising from Mr. Atkinson’s arrest materially alter that conclusion.
48The tattoo evidence provides, at most, a link between Mr. Atkinson and the male depicted in the surveillance footage from August 13, three days before the Sioux Lookout shooting. It does not directly link Mr. Atkinson to the Sioux Lookout shooting itself. Its relevance is further diminished by the absence of any evidence that the Brampton shooter had a tattoo on his hand.
49The evidence concerning the running shoes is similarly of limited assistance. While the shoes worn by Mr. Atkinson at the time of his arrest appear similar to those worn by the Sioux Lookout shooter, that evidence does little to overcome the substantial dissimilarities between the shootings themselves. As previously noted, the likely availability of this type of black Nike running shoe further reduces the strength of any inference sought to be drawn from the similarity.
50Moreover, the shoe evidence from Mr. Atkinson’s arrest is otherwise admissible on the issue of identity in relation to the Brampton shooting. Its admissibility does not depend upon introducing evidence of the Sioux Lookout shooting.
51The same may be said of the firearm evidence. The fact that Mr. Atkinson was found in close proximity to a firearm with his DNA on it that forensic testing links to both shootings does not transform two otherwise dissimilar incidents into sufficiently similar acts for admissibility purposes. To hold otherwise would permit linkage evidence to eclipse the primary inquiry mandated by the authorities – namely, whether the acts themselves are sufficiently similar. Linkage evidence cannot compensate for a lack of similarity between the acts themselves.
52Like the shoe evidence, the firearm evidence is otherwise admissible on the issues of identity and possession in relation to the Brampton charges without resort to evidence of the Sioux Lookout shooting.
53In the end, the Crown's position effectively asks the court to use evidence linking Mr. Atkinson to the Sioux Lookout shooting as a substitute for the absence of meaningful similarity between the two shootings. The jurisprudence does not permit that approach. Linkage evidence may support otherwise cogent similar act evidence, but it cannot create the requisite cogency where it does not otherwise exist.
54Accordingly, the evidence arising from Mr. Atkinson's arrest does not overcome the lack of similarity between the Brampton and Sioux Lookout shootings and does not alter my conclusion that the proposed similar act evidence is inadmissible.
55For completeness, I note that much of the evidence arising from Mr. Atkinson's arrest – including the running shoes and the firearm recovered beneath the mattress – would also appear to be admissible at the Sioux Lookout trial as circumstantial evidence of identity and possession. That reality may similarly affect the necessity and admissibility of any future application to introduce evidence of the Brampton shooting in that proceeding.
IV. CONCLUSION
56The Crown has failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the probative value of the proposed similar act evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. The Brampton and Sioux Lookout shootings do not share sufficiently striking similarities, nor the cumulative effect of a number of significant similarities, to render it objectively improbable that the shootings were the product of coincidence rather than being committed by the same person.
57Accordingly, the Crown’s similar act application is dismissed.
Released: July 17, 2026
Signed: Justice Tomovski