WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 212, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant's sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE
(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Court Information
Ontario Court of Justice
Date: December 7, 2016
Court File No.: Newmarket 15-09466
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
— AND —
Kristopher Jonathan Moradi
Before: Justice Joseph F. Kenkel
Admissibility Ruling
December 7, 2016.
Counsel:
- Mr. M. Dionne — counsel for the Crown
- Mr. E Ghebrai — counsel for the defendant
KENKEL J.:
[1] The accused is charged with eight offences including two counts of sexual assault and four counts alleging exploitation of the complainant via compelled prostitution.
[2] Both parties agree that police forensic analysis recovered a PDF book from the accused's laptop entitled, "Pimpology — The 48 Laws of the Game". The defence submits that the book should not be admitted into evidence as there is little or no probative value and the prejudicial impact is significant. The Crown submits that relevance outweighs any prejudicial effect. The book is relevant to the complainant's evidence and to the accused's statement.
[3] It's plain that the central issue in this trial is credibility. Relevance asks whether the existence of a particular fact makes the existence of a fact at issue more or less likely. R v Candir 2009 ONCA 915, [2009] OJ No 5485 at para 48. The PDF book is circumstantial evidence that could support the credibility of the complainant's evidence. The presence of the book on the accused's laptop is also a circumstance that might weigh against his statements to the police that he was not involved in human trafficking. The book is relevant evidence.
[4] The Crown does not tender the book to show bad character. The PDF book was on the accused's laptop at a time contemporaneous to the allegations. The fact the accused possessed such a book at that time is directly relevant to the evidence heard and the central issue before the court. Potential prejudice is limited given the proposed use of the evidence and is otherwise outweighed by the probative value of the evidence.
[5] I find the PDF book to be admissible.
Released: December 7, 2016
Justice Joseph F. Kenkel