R. Alexander Cornelius

The accused, on trial for second-degree murder, brought an application to exclude several documents seized by police from an abandoned apartment he formerly occupied.

The documents included a probation order, letters from a girlfriend, drawings depicting a gun, and a driver's licence suspension notice.

The Crown sought to introduce the documents to negate the accused's claim of self-defence and innocent purpose.

The court allowed the application and excluded the documents, finding they lacked relevance and probative value, and that their prejudicial effect far outweighed any potential probative value.

The Crown brought a motion seeking to admit evidence of an alleged robbery occurring four days before a fatal shooting as similar fact evidence in a second degree murder trial.

The Crown argued that the earlier incident shared distinctive similarities with the charged offence, including the use of a firearm, hotel-room encounters with sex trade workers, and the use of the same cellphone number to arrange meetings.

The respondent opposed admission, arguing that the similarities were generic and that the evidentiary link between the accused and the earlier robbery was weak and largely hearsay.

The court held that the similarities were not sufficiently distinctive and that the evidence linking the accused to the earlier incident was not cogent.

As the probative value did not outweigh the prejudicial effect, the proposed similar fact evidence was ruled inadmissible.

The Crown brought a motion to admit other discreditable conduct evidence in a prosecution for first degree murder after the defence indicated it may raise not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.

The proposed evidence included prior incidents of violence and jealousy within the accused’s relationship with the deceased, as well as unrelated statements reflecting violent and sexual attitudes.

Applying the balancing test from R. v. Handy, the court assessed whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential moral and reasoning prejudice.

Evidence from several witnesses describing prior violent conduct toward the deceased and a jealous reaction toward a third party was admitted as contextual evidence relevant to motive and intent.

Evidence concerning unrelated sexually violent remarks was excluded as insufficiently connected to the alleged offence and highly prejudicial.