Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2018-09-13 Court File No.: Newmarket 18-02058

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— AND —

Ryan Reesor

Ruling on Past Discreditable Conduct

Heard and Delivered: 13 September, 2018

Counsel:

• Ms. Michelle Rumble, counsel for the Crown
• Ms. Eleanor Shaw, counsel for the defendant

KENKEL J.:

[1] The Crown applies to adduce evidence of past threats by the accused in relation to a former boyfriend of the complainant CP. While the evidence is of past discreditable conduct, the Crown submits it's relevant to the history of the relationship between the parties, the accused's animus towards CP, and the complainant's credibility, particularly in regards to the charge in this trial that alleges the accused threatened to kill CP.

[2] The defence concedes that some of the evidence is relevant for the reasons submitted by the Crown, but the details of past threats to CP which may be disputed, are dated and not relevant to the present charge. It's not admitted that Mr. Reesor sent the prior texts so calling that evidence may lead to further contests of fact that divert this trial from the central issues.

[3] Both parties agree that the credibility of the complainant will be a central issue at trial. The proposed evidence is directly relevant to that issue. If accepted, the proposed evidence could show the nature of the accused's relationship with the complainant after their breakup 6 years ago. It may show particular animus in relation to CP which is relevant to charges in this trial. It may be relevant to the complainant's description of the accused's general animus regarding her contact with other men. I find that the proposed evidence is potentially highly probative on those points. See: R v DSF, [1999] OJ No 688 (CA). The date of the prior incidents does not detract significantly from the potential probative value in this case given the evidence already heard about the complainant's ongoing relationship with the accused after their breakup.

[4] I find the potential probative value of the evidence outweighs any prejudicial effect. The fact that this is a judge-alone trial precludes improper use of such evidence. I'm satisfied the further factual disputes that may arise will not divert the trial from the central issues. The Crown may proceed.

Delivered: 13 September, 2018

Justice Joseph F. Kenkel