R. Pillay

The accused applied under s. 599(1) of the Criminal Code for a change of venue for a first‑degree murder trial, arguing that extensive pre‑trial publicity and community response in Hamilton had irreparably tainted the local jury pool.

The Crown and the co‑accused opposed the motion, submitting that the presumption favouring trial in the territorial jurisdiction of the alleged offence had not been displaced and that standard jury selection safeguards would ensure fairness.

The court reviewed the nature, extent, and timing of media coverage, including internet and social media discussion, and found that most reporting was factual and not highly prejudicial.

It held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a fair and reasonable probability of prejudice that could not be addressed through the jury selection process.

The motion for a change of venue was dismissed.

The applicants sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash their committal to stand trial on a charge of production of Ephedrine.

They argued the preliminary hearing judge exceeded his jurisdiction by finding the added count arose from the same transaction as the original charges and by finding sufficient evidence for committal.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the preliminary hearing judge correctly applied the 'same transaction' rule under s. 548(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and properly assessed the circumstantial evidence in determining there was sufficient evidence to commit the applicants to trial.

In a prosecution for attempted murder involving a firearm, the Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused’s prior discreditable conduct involving a former partnership with the complainant in illegal marijuana grow operations and the alleged theft of those operations’ contents.

The defence argued the evidence was prejudicial character evidence and unnecessary given other identification evidence.

The court applied the principles governing similar fact and discreditable conduct evidence, including the probative value versus prejudicial effect balancing test articulated in R. v. Handy.

The court held the evidence was highly probative of motive, intent, identification, and narrative context, explaining why the accused was present at the location of the alleged shooting and the dynamics between the parties.

The probative value outweighed the potential for moral or reasoning prejudice.