The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct—specifically, prior charges for possession of stolen property that were withdrawn—in a trial involving charges of theft and possession of stolen construction equipment valued over $5,000.
The accused opposed admission of this evidence.
The court applied the principled approach established in R. v. Handy and determined that the evidence was admissible for the narrow purpose of rebutting an anticipated defence of ignorance or wilful blindness, on the basis that an accused previously charged with similar offences would be expected to exercise heightened scrutiny regarding the legitimacy of equipment in his possession.
The court found the probative value of the evidence outweighed the risk of prejudice, particularly given that this was a judge-alone trial where moral and reasoning prejudice were significantly reduced.
