In a criminal prosecution alleging bid-rigging and conspiracy arising from multiple federal government IT procurement processes, the Crown moved for a similar fact ruling permitting the jury to use evidence on one count across other counts against the same accused.
Applying the governing similar fact evidence framework, the court held that such evidence is presumptively inadmissible unless its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect and it is sufficiently connected to a live issue.
The court found minimal moral prejudice because the jury had already heard the impugned evidence, but concluded that significant differences among the three groups of procurements reduced the probative value of using the evidence across all procurements.
The motion was therefore granted only in part, limited to the CBSA RFPs and subject to further submissions after the defence evidence.
