COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-1297 DATE: 2023-12-13 CORRECTION DATE: 2024-02-01

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING Applicant – and – Liam Stinson Respondent

Counsel: Grace Alcaide-Janicas, and Alayna Jay, for the Crown Joseph Wilkinson and Liam Thompson, for the Defence

HEARD: September 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 2023

CORRECTED VOIR DIRE RULING – ANTE–MORTEM STATEMENTS

Non-Publication Ban is added on first page and back page.

Cornell J.

Introduction

[1] The accused is charged with first degree murder and attempted murder as a result of the death of three people who died in a house that was firebombed. One person managed to escape.

[2] The Crown proposes that there are three routes to first degree murder:

1. Planned and Deliberate
2. Contracted Murder
3. Via Criminal Harassment

[3] The Crown has sought a ruling about the admissibility of a number of statements made by Jamie Lynn Rose (“Ms. Rose”) to various persons prior to her death as a result of the fire.

Background

[4] On April 11, 2021, a fire was deliberately set to a townhouse at approximately 4:00 a.m. There were four occupants of the townhouse at that time. David Cheff managed to escape the inferno. Ms. Rose and two others were trapped and died.

[5] Some ten months prior to the fire, Ms. Rose and the accused entered into some form of a domestic relationship. The accused was a drug dealer. Both the accused and Ms. Rose were drug users.

[6] The relationship between the parties was a tumultuous one. As my review will later detail, there were a number of occasions when one or both would call 9-1-1 making various allegations against the other. Ms. Rose often alleged that she was being held hostage, that she had been assaulted by the accused, and that he had stolen or damaged her property. Despite the fact that Ms. Rose made these allegations from time to time, she always refused to provide a statement to the police with a result that no charges were ever laid against the accused in connection with those allegations.

[7] There were times when the accused called 9-1-1 to report that Ms. Rose was using drugs, that she was crazy, that she had trashed his apartment, and that she had left his apartment during cold weather without being properly dressed.

[8] There was at least one occasion when Ms. Rose was removed from the apartment to spend the night at the YMCA Safety Shelter as well as other occasions when she would return to her hometown in Timmins, Ontario. After a short stay in Timmins, Ms. Rose would return to the accused’s residence in Sudbury, Ontario.

[9] As the relationship went on, Ms. Rose told others that she was afraid for her safety and that she wanted to leave the accused. She did so in late March or early April of 2021 when she moved into the nearby home of her friend, David Cheff.

[10] It is the theory of the Crown that the accused was angry and jealous as a result of this development. It is further the theory of the Crown that the accused believed that Ms. Rose would take some of his drug business to the Cheff residence. There is evidence in the days leading up to the fire that the accused spoke of taking revenge by getting junkies to do something to Mr. Cheff’s house.

[11] On April 11, 2021, around 4:00 a.m., Jared Herrick and Phillippe Jeannotte firebombed Mr. Cheff’s residence using Molotov cocktails. It is alleged that in order for them to do so, the accused promised them fentanyl and money. Messer’s, Herrick and Jeannotte have plead guilty to manslaughter and have been sentenced.

Admissions

[12] The defence is prepared to stipulate that the accused and Ms. Rose had been in a relationship for approximately 10 months in March of 2021 and that they resided in the accused’s residence at 42-775 Cambrian Heights, Sudbury, Ontario. The defence is also prepared to stipulate that the relationship between the parties was “tumultuous.”

Hearsay Evidence

[13] Hearsay evidence is presumptively inadmissible when such evidence is tendered to establish the truth of the statement that was made. Hearsay can be admitted under one of the traditional exceptions, one of which is res gestae.

Res Gestae

[14] The Crown asks that various 9-1-1 calls and other evidence be admitted pursuant to the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. In doing so, the Crown asks that evidence from the 9-1-1 calls be admitted at trial for the truth of such statements.

[15] In David M. Paciocco, Lee Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2010), at p. 223, it states that the res gestae exception consists of a “…statement [that] is made while the condition, mental state, or state of excitement is being personally experienced by the declarant, and the declarant is stimulated by this personal experience.”

[16] A more detailed definition of res gestae is set out in R. v. Khan (1988), 27 O.A.C. 142 (C.A.), as quoted in R. v. Hall:

[A] spontaneous statement made under the stress or pressure of a dramatic or startling event and relating to such an occasion may be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The stress or pressure of the act or event must be such that the possibility of concoction or deception can be safely discounted. The statement need not be made strictly contemporaneous to the occurrence so long as the stress or pressure created by it is ongoing and the statement is made before there has been time to contrive or misrepresent. The admissibility of such statements is dependent on the possibility of concoction or fabrication. Where the spontaneity of the statement is clear and the danger of fabrication is remote, the evidence should be received.

R. v. Hall, 2011 ONSC 5628, [2011] O.J. No. 5109, at para. 16.

[17] In order to be admissible, the statement must be contemporaneous or close to contemporaneous to an unusual, overwhelming event which left the declarant under pressure or emotional intensity preventing the opportunity to concoct or mislead the recipient. See R. v. Nguyen, 2015 ONCA 278, at para. 146; R. v. Mullin, 2019 ONCA 890, at para. 41.

[18] Despite the fact that a statement may have been made in such circumstances, such statement should be excluded if there is a realistic possibility of error. See R. v. Hall, 2018 MBCA 122, at para. 41; R. v. MacKinnon, 2022 ONCA 811, at para. 44.

[19] When I undertake the question of the admissibility of various statements that are alleged to constitute res gestae, it is necessary that I bear in mind the framework that I have described. In particular, I will consider in each incident, whether, in fact, the statement was made contemporaneously with the event in question, and whether in each case the circumstances of the making of such statement precluded the opportunity for concoction.

Principled Exception

[20] The Crown also submits that if the proposed hearsay evidence is not admissible pursuant to the res gestae exception, that such evidence is admissible pursuant to the principled approach to hearsay.

[21] The legal landscape for the consideration of the admissibility of evidence pursuant to this exception is now well established. The challenge arises in the application of those principles to a particular set of facts.

[22] Where hearsay statements satisfy the criteria of necessity and reliability, they are generally admissible where the declarant is not available to testify. See R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531.

[23] The introduction of such hearsay evidence means that the declarant is not available for the purpose of cross-examination. In order to minimize the evidentiary dangers created by the absence of the declarant, the separate requirements of necessity and reliability must be established. See R. v. Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787, at para. 2.

[24] Necessity has been established in this case for the hearsay statements of Ms. Rose due to her death. The remaining issue for my consideration is whether such hearsay statements made by her satisfy the requirement that such statements are reliable.

[25] Reliability can be established either by procedural reliability or substantive reliability. See R. v. Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 865, at paras. 18-32. Reliability can be established by a combination of procedural and substantive reliability. Bradshaw, at para. 32. There is no procedural reliability in this case.

[26] In order for a statement to be substantively reliable, there must be a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness. The statement must be inherently trustworthy. The circumstances under which the statement was made must be carefully considered if such hearsay evidence is to be admitted. Those circumstances must “substantially negate the possibility that the declarant was untruthful or mistaken.” See R. v. Carroll, [2009] O.J. No. 4405, at para. 17.

[27] Put another way, the question can be asked: Are the events surrounding the statements sufficient to provide a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness which would justify the admission of such evidence without the test of cross-examination? See Khelawon, at para. 72; R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531, at p. 935.

[28] In assessing the circumstances under which a hearsay statement is made, various factors need to be taken into consideration in determining whether there are circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. These include:

• the nature of the event reported;
• the timing of the statement in relation to the events described;
• whether the statement was made spontaneously;
• the demeanor of the deceased declarant at the time of the statement;
• the level of detail given in the statement;
• the relationship between the deceased declarant and the witness;
• the existence of any motive to lie;
• conduct of the declarant; and
• supporting or contradictory evidence.

[29] As is detailed in my subsequent analysis of the various hearsay statements that are proposed for admission, some of these factors raise concerns about whether such statements are inherently trustworthy. This includes the fact that there is contradictory evidence in a number of the incidents. This point was addressed in R. v. Blackman, 2008 SCC 37, where the court stated, at para. 55:

Consider, on the one hand, the hearsay statement of a complainant who asserts that she was repeatedly stabbed but has no injury to show in support. The lack of corroborative evidence would seriously undermine the trustworthiness of the statement and, indeed, would likely be fatal to its admissibility. On the other hand, an item of corroborative evidence can also substantiate the trustworthiness of a statement. Recall the semen stain in R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531. Where an item of evidence goes to the trustworthiness of the statement, Khelawon tells us that it should no longer be excluded simply on the basis that it is corroborative in nature.

[30] During various interactions with the police, Ms. Rose alleged that she had bruises as a result of being assaulted by the accused and, on one occasion, asserted that he had broken her ribs. On each occasion, police were not able to detect any sign of injury whatsoever. On each occasion, Ms. Rose declined medical treatment. On each occasion, Ms. Rose declined the opportunity to provide a statement to police.

[31] At various times, Ms. Rose made statements to the police and others that the accused had stolen her identification, bank card and her phone. On other occasions, she told people that she had misplaced the items or that they may have been stolen by someone other than the accused.

[32] During one of the incidents, Ms. Rose acknowledged to the police that when describing events involving the accused to her mother, including allegations that she was being held hostage, she was “in a panic and embellished.” During the course of the evidence that she gave at the preliminary hearing, Rose’s mother conceded that there were times when her daughter exaggerated, but she went on to say that she had no proof that in fact, her daughter had done so.

[33] There is also the question as to whether Ms. Rose had a motive to lie.

[34] She was a drug user who stated at various times that she was homeless and had no money. Ms. Rose’s mother indicated that there were occasions when she gave Ms. Rose money to pay her rent and to buy food and cigarettes. On one occasion that will be discussed, the hearsay statements which made very serious allegations against the accused resulted in Ms. Rose’s plea for help being answered by her mother providing her with a bus ticket to return to Timmins. Because of Ms. Rose’s circumstances and her financial situation, I need to consider whether she had a motive to lie when she made the various statements to the 9-1-1 operators, the police, her mother and others.

[35] If Ms. Rose had a motive to lie, such motive to lie would undermine the threshold reliability of a statement: see R. v. Czibulka (2004), 190 O.A.C. 1, at paras. 52-53 and 57. Even if Ms. Rose had a motive to lie, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that such motive is only one factor to consider in the analysis of whether a hearsay statement meets the test for threshold reliability. See Blackman, at para. 28.

[36] Against all of this background, these concerns will be carefully considered in determining whether the proposed hearsay evidence is inherently trustworthy.

Threshold Reliability

[37] At this stage of the proceedings, I must address the question as to whether the Crown has been able to establish threshold reliability, not ultimate reliability. The Crown must establish threshold reliability on a balance of probabilities. See Khelawon, at para. 50.

[38] It has been established that the bar for admission for threshold reliability has been set quite low. The Crown properly submits that “excluding evidence that presents minimal dangers to trial fairness would be more detrimental to the fact-finding function of the court than it’s admission of important evidence leading to the truth would otherwise be lost.” In support of this proposition, reference is made to the dissent of Wagner J. (as he then was) in R. v. Youvarajah, 2013 SCC 41, at para. 102, where he states:

Given the truth-seeking function of the judicial process, I am of the view that threshold reliability should be generously interpreted in the admissibility inquiry. Trial fairness and protection against the dangers of hearsay are not sacrificed where the trier of fact is ultimately able to make reasonable determinations of the weight to be accorded to evidence before the court. The reliability inquiry does not ensure absolute reliability. Rather, the circumstances surrounding the hearsay [page754] evidence must provide a sufficient basis for the trier of fact to assess and assign the appropriate weight and eventually determine ultimate reliability.

[39] While being aware of the fact that the bar for threshold evidence has been set low, I must also assess whether the introduction of the hearsay evidence in question presents minimal dangers to trial fairness.

State of Mind Exception

[40] In this case, the Crown suggests that some of the hearsay in question can be admitted on the basis of the state of mind hearsay exception. Such statements are admissible to prove a person’s state of mind, if such state of mind is relevant. The circumstances and context in which the statement was made must be considered in evaluating the reliability of such statement. In order for such statements to be admissible, they must be made in a natural manner and not in circumstances of suspicion. See R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, at para. 168; R. v. Smith, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915.

[41] In this case, the Crown wants to use the mental state as expressed by Ms. Rose to establish that she was afraid of the accused as well as to establish the accused’s animus towards her. In turn, the Crown suggests that such evidence is relevant to motive and, in further turn, to the issue of the identity of the killer. See R. v. Griffin, 2009 SCC 28, at paras. 65-66.

[42] The Crown has put forward that the accused had a motive to want to kill Ms. Rose because he was jealous and angry that she had left him and, having taken up residence with another drug dealer, she may attempt to direct the accused’s customers to the other drug dealer. It will be up to the jury to determine if the accused had such motives.

[43] The state of mind of Ms. Rose concerning her relationship with the accused can be relevant to the question of motive. This issue was canvassed in R. v. P. (R.) (1990), 58 C.C.C. (3d) 334 (Ont. H.C.J.). Like this case, the deceased female had expressed her desire to end the relationship. In considering this issue of motive within the context of a domestic homicide, Doherty J. (as he then was) stated, at para.12:

In this case, the deceased’s various mental states as described above make it more probable that her relationship with [the accused] was unsatisfactory to her, that she determined to end it, and that she, in fact, did end it on what, in her mind, was a permanent basis, than would be the case if there was no evidence of her state of mind. These facts, in turn, make it more probable that [the accused] had the motive ascribed to him by the Crown than would be the case without this evidence. By that, I mean the fact that his partner in the relationship was dissatisfied with the relationship, determined to end it, and had done so on what she believed to be a permanent basis, makes it more probable that the event which the Crown says precipitated [the accused’s] motive (her departure and decision to permanently end the relationship) occurred. The occurrence of these events in turn makes it more probable that the motive existed than would be the case if the triggering event did not occur. This route to relevance does not depend on the accused knowing of the deceased’s state of mind. If he is aware of her intentions, then the evidence has an added relevance and affords more direct proof of motive….

[44] The question as to the use of hearsay evidence about the nature of the relationship between the accused and the deceased was considered in R. v. Moo, 2009 ONCA 645, at para. 98, where Watt J. stated:

In prosecutions for domestic homicide, evidence is frequently admitted to elucidate the nature of the relationship between the accused and the deceased. This evidence, which often discloses misconduct other than that charged, not only demonstrates the nature of the relationship between the parties, but may also afford evidence of motive and animus relevant to establish the identity of the deceased’s killer and the state of mind within which the killing was done… [Citations omitted.]

[45] In this case, the Crown wants to use the evidence of Ms. Rose’s state of mind, as expressed by her, as evidence to establish animus, motive and identity.

Probative Value / Prejudicial Effect

[46] It is now well established that a trial court has a residual discretion to exclude evidence if the probative value of such evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See R. v. Seaboyer; R. v. Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; R. v. Grant, 2015 SCC 9, at para. 19.

[47] An overview as to the nature of this discretion is set out in David M. Paciocco & Lee Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 5th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2010), at p. 47:

Apart altogether from fixed rules of exclusion, judges have the discretion to exclude relevant and material evidence where its probative value is outweighed by its “prejudice.” In considering the exclusionary discretion, a judge must determine the value of the evidence, based on both its believability and the strength of the inferences to which it leads, as well as the costs presented by such evidence, including things as diverse as the practicalities of its presentation, the fairness to the parties and to witnesses, and the potentially distorting effect the evidence can have on the outcome of the case. The judge will then determine whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudice. If so, the judge may exclude the evidence, even though it does not run afoul of any exclusionary rules. Because of full answer and defence considerations, criminal defence evidence should be excluded solely where the risks of prejudice substantially outweigh its probative value. [Emphasis added.]

[48] In undertaking this exercise, there is a cost-benefit analysis that is required to see whether the value of the evidence is worth what it costs. See R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, at para. 18.

[49] As will later become clear as I assess the hearsay evidence, I have ruled that some of it is inadmissible. In many cases, there were two competing versions of the event in question with the result that if such evidence were to be admitted, it would result in various trials within a trial and run the risk that, as has been said, “the various sideshows would overtake the circus.” This would unduly lengthen the trial. It would add complexity. It runs the risk that the jury would lose sight of the task that properly lay before them. This cost-benefit analysis has been considered for all of the hearsay evidence in dispute.

[50] At this stage of the proceedings, I am tasked with assessing whether the evidence is sufficiently probative as to be worthy of being heard by the jury. In doing so, I am to consider the credibility and reliability of the evidence to determine if there are defects in the evidence that would result in an unfair trial. See R. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52, at para. 95.

[51] The issue of prejudice must also be considered. The danger associated with moral prejudice is that the jury may be inclined to convict a person because they are bad or evil. See R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, at para. 139; R. v. Arp, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339, at para. 40.

[52] Reasoning prejudice refers to the practical challenges that some evidence can present. This includes the possibility that the jury may be distracted from the real issues. This may be brought about because the evidence is inflammatory, complex, confusing or time consuming. The danger of evidence that is prejudicial was considered by Doherty J. in R. v. P (R.). He said, at para. 39:

Prejudice can refer to several things. In the context of this case, it means the danger, despite instructions to the contrary, that the jury will use the evidence of the deceased’s utterances for purposes other than drawing inferences and conclusions as to her state of mind and as to her subsequent conduct. In particular, the jury may infer from some of the utterances that [the accused] was a tyrannical person, obsessed with controlling the deceased even to the extent of engaging in illegal and bizarre conduct. From that, they may infer that he is the sort of person who would kill someone who dared challenge his authority over that person. This line of reasoning, while not illogical, is not permitted. [Citation omitted.]

[53] Having set out the legal principles that apply to the admissibility questions at hand, I will now undertake a consideration of the hearsay evidence that the Crown wants to make use of bearing in mind the legal framework that has been outlined.

Analysis

[54] To assist with the organization of all of this evidence, counsel jointly prepared a summary attached as Appendix “A.” A check mark has been made in the middle column where counsel agree that such evidence is admissible. An “X” indicates that I have ruled that such evidence is inadmissible. The letter “A” indicates that I have ruled that such evidence is admissible where admissibility was contested.

August 19, 2020 Incident

[55] On this day, Ms. Rose called 9-1-1. During the course of that call, she reported that her wallet and bank cards had been stolen by the accused who had driven off with some of her belongings. She said that she felt that the accused was a dangerous person. She was worried because she knew him to be violent and that he had threatened to drag her out by her hair. The Crown submits that this evidence is admissible under the res gestae hearsay exception. That is not the case. There is no evidence tying the time of the 9-1-1 call to a dramatic or startling event. To the contrary, the events that Ms. Rose referred to largely had taken place over the previous day or two. Quite apart from that, there is evidence that the allegations made by Ms. Rose during the 9-1-1 call were untrue.

[56] As a result of the 9-1-1 call, police attended and prepared an Occurrence Report that was tendered as evidence. Ms. Rose had told police that she was covered in bruises from an assault that had taken place the day before. When the officer viewed her arms and legs, no bruises were visible.

[57] A police report from the day prior indicated that Ms. Rose became irate when she could not find her bank card and cell phone at which time, she caused damage to the accused’s apartment.

[58] Although Ms. Rose initially indicated that she had been assaulted by the accused, she later admitted that there was no assault as the accused was simply trying to stop her erratic behaviour and remove her from his apartment.

[59] On August 18, 2020, the police responded to a weapons complaint at the accused’s residence. Investigation revealed that the weapon in question was a metal bat that Ms. Rose was using to bang on the front door of the accused’s residence. On that day, she advised police that on the evening of August 17, 2020, she had been partying with a group of people who had been shooting up with “crack.” When she awoke the next morning, she could not find her TD bank card and cell phone. By her own admission, she became irate and began “turning Liam’s apartment upside down, looking for my bank card.” It was at that point she admitted to police that the alleged assault consisted of the accused grabbing her by the arms in an effort to get her to stop her erratic behaviour and to get her to leave his residence. Although she initially asserted that the accused and “Riley” had stolen her cell phone, she admitted to police that she had later located her phone in her luggage. When discussing these events with the police on August 18, 2020, Ms. Rose concluded by apologizing to the officers by saying that she was simply upset because she could not find her bank card and her cell phone and that she is currently homeless.

[60] Although Ms. Rose alleges bad conduct on the part of the accused, in the form of the theft of her wallet and bank card, the information that she gave to police suggests that she had simply misplaced them.

[61] This proposed hearsay evidence is not admissible under the principled exception either. Although the evidence is necessary, it is not substantively reliable given the substantial differences between the information that she provided during the course of the 9-1-1 call and the information that she subsequently provided to the police. It may well be that if Ms. Rose were to be available for cross-examination, the story would have changed yet again.

[62] Given the concerns that have been raised, this hearsay evidence is also inadmissible as its prejudicial effect far outweighs its probative value.

[63] The August 19, 2020 9-1-1 call and the associated occurrence reports are, therefore, inadmissible.

October 31, 2020 Incident

[64] On this day, a number of 9-1-1 calls were received from members of the public indicating that a woman was being held hostage. At 07:26 hours, the accused called 9-1-1 to request police assistance as “my girlfriend, … she’s going crazy.” The accused told the 9-1-1 operator that Ms. Rose had damaged his house and his car and that she was yelling out the window that he was abusing her. The accused’s 9-1-1 call indicates that the accused had removed himself from the situation as he was downstairs on the main floor.

[65] When police arrived, they were met by the accused who told them that Ms. Rose “was freaking out and yelling, possibly on drugs”, and that she had been trying to drive away in his car. The accused said that Ms. Rose “started destroying my house.” When he tried to restrain her, the occurrence report indicates that “she started to yell that he would not let her leave and that she was being held hostage.”

[66] Ms. Rose told police that “Liam squeezed me so hard that he broke my ribs.” She lifted her shirt to show the bruises, but the police did not see any bruising or trauma to the area. Ms. Rose refused to have paramedics attend. She refused to go to the hospital to get checked out when that was offered.

[67] Ms. Rose also claimed that the accused stole her green camo jacket which had her debit card in it. When asked, Ms. Rose declined attending at the police station in order to provide a statement. The police report indicates that “Jamie could not focus on any one topic for long and was largely uncooperative. As such, this incident can be marked as concluded with no grounds for any criminal charges at this time.”

[68] At 23:43 hours, the police received a call from the accused advising that Ms. Rose had reattended at his residence and was banging on the door demanding to be let in. He advised the police that Ms. Rose was unwanted at his place of residence. When police arrived at 23:52 hours, Ms. Rose was not present, and the door knock to the accused’s residence went unanswered.

[69] The 9-1-1 calls are double hearsay. None of the 9-1-1 callers could identify Ms. Rose as the person who was claiming to be held hostage.

[70] The Crown submits that Ms. Rose’s statements constitute res gestae. This would only be possible if she was being held hostage. As the defence points out, “If the only proof of there being a hostage taking is the statement itself, then the argument must fail on the basis of circularity.” Beyond Ms. Rose’s claims, there was no evidence that she was being held hostage. The accused, who was alleged to be the person holding her hostage, had called 9-1-1 himself to request police assistance. He had removed himself from the situation by going down to the first floor.

[71] The evidence cannot be admitted on a principled basis either. The circumstances give rise to suspicion. Although Ms. Rose alleged that she had been injured to the extent that she had a broken rib, the police saw no evidence of any injury and Ms. Rose refused any form of medical treatment. The police report documents Ms. Rose’s conduct as erratic and uncooperative. This is consistent with the accused’s version of events that Ms. Rose was destroying his apartment during a drug-fuelled episode. Although the bar for threshold reliability is quite low, the factual background makes it clear that the evidence in connection with this incident does not rise even to that level.

[72] The bad character evidence consisting of allegations of aggravated assault, theft and forcible confinement is highly prejudicial. If this evidence were to be introduced, it would invite a trial within a trial that would distract the jury from the real task at hand. I conclude that the prejudicial value of this proposed evidence exceeds its probative value.

[73] The evidence associated with this October 31, 2020, incident is, therefore, to be excluded.

December 20, 2020 Incident

The Morning

[74] The information provided in connection with this series of events comes from a 9-1-1 call from Ms. Wright, who is Ms. Rose’s mother, and a telephone call Ms. Rose made to her mother after she went to an internet café. It also comes from the accused and from a Police Occurrence Report which was prepared after the police located and interacted with Ms. Rose that afternoon.

[75] During the course of Ms. Wright’s 9-1-1 telephone call, she tells the dispatcher that “they’re threatening to kill her, that they are trying to get her to sleep with some black guy and trying to force her into prostitution, that it is getting violent, and that Ms. Rose is being held hostage.” This information was being provided by Ms. Rose to her mother via Facebook Messenger. The copies of the messages that were originally provided are screen shots of screen shots. The messages themselves make it clear that the record of such messages is incomplete. It appears that they were not even in chronologic order. When I requested that an extraction report or a complete record of the Facebook Messenger exchanges be provided, it was acknowledged that the second version provided to me was also incomplete. No extraction report was available.

[76] At the same time that these events were unfolding, the accused had called the police station and advised that Ms. Rose had left on foot wearing a red coat along with two bags containing her clothes. He said that she was high on cocaine, and he believed her to be going through a psychosis as she had been using a lot of drugs. He told the police that he was not currently at home, but that he would be home later.

[77] It would appear that the Facebook messages began at 10:19 a.m. Ms. Wright’s 9-1-1 call is recorded at 10:23 a.m. and concludes at approximately 10:28 a.m. The police are dispatched at 10:31 a.m. and arrive at 10:46 a.m., some 18 minutes after the 9-1-1 call. When there is no response to a door knock on Unit 42, the accused’s residence, police obtain a key and enter the unit to find it vacant.

[78] After canvassing neighbouring units, the police are advised that the occupants of Unit 42 had left more than an hour ago.

[79] The Crown suggests that portions of the 9-1-1 call are res gestae. That is not the case. In the Occurrence Report, Ms. Rose advises the police that when she woke up in the morning to some unknown black male talking to her, she was fed up. That is why she messaged her mother and wanted to get home. She thought that was the only way to get out. Apart from the fact that the content of the 9-1-1 call is double hearsay, it is clear from the information that Ms. Rose later provided to police that she decided when she woke up to seek her mother’s help to get back to Timmins. When exchanging information with her mother, it is clear that a state of excitement was not being personally experienced by her.

[80] At the time that Ms. Rose was communicating with her mother, there is evidence provided by the accused during his call to the police that her version of events had been concocted. At a minimum, such allegations are unreliable given the fact that she admitted to police that she panicked and embellished while she was talking to her mother as I later detail.

[81] The information provided by Ms. Rose also presents suspicious circumstances. Ms. Rose alleges that she is being held hostage and yet the accused’s telephone call to the police station at the time these events are unfolding indicates that she packed a bag and left of her own accord while she was high on drugs.

[82] The evidence from the neighbours indicates that the occupants of the accused’s unit had left about an hour ago which is some evidence that Ms. Rose may not even have been in the accused’s apartment at the time that she was using Facebook Messenger to contact her mother.

[83] I also have a concern that the various allegations made by Ms. Rose constitute a pattern. Ms. Rose alleges that she is being held hostage, but even with prompt police attendance, that turns out not to be the case yet again. Ms. Rose asserts that the accused has stolen her identification and bank cards, but at other times, indicates that she may simply have misplaced them, or they may have been stolen by someone else.

[84] At the preliminary hearing, Ms. Wright acknowledged that Ms. Rose would at times ask for money to pay her rent or to buy food and cigarettes. Ms. Wright also acknowledged at the preliminary hearing, that she was aware that at times, her daughter exaggerated her circumstances. By her own admission to police, Ms. Rose felt that she had to embellish her story to her mother that she had no money and no other way to seek help. Ms. Rose had a reason to lie in order to obtain help from her mother.

[85] In these circumstances, the evidence from the 9-1-1 call, the screen shots and the messages exchanged between Ms. Rose and her mother cannot be admitted under the principled exception either as substantive reliability has not been established at the threshold level.

The Afternoon

[86] At 12:52 p.m. police located Ms. Rose. She told police that she had “walked from Cambrian Heights (the area of the accused’s residence) to Frood Road, to attempt to continue conversations with her mother as she left in a hurry from her ex-boyfriend’s residence.” She told police that she had ended up getting back into crack and cocaine use with the accused. Police agreed to take Ms. Rose back to the accused’s apartment so that she could gather her personal effects. While en route, she told police that she had misplaced her I.D. for months now and said that she didn’t know if her boyfriend did something with her I.D. or whether it was stolen.

[87] She also admitted that she messaged her mother “in a panic and embellished,” but felt that she had no other way to seek help as she has no money.

[88] When they returned to the accused’s unit, the accused was not present. Ms. Rose located her cell phone on the floor with the battery removed. When she placed the battery back in the phone, it was working and not damaged.

[89] Ms. Wright had purchased a bus ticket for her daughter to return to Timmins. When the police were driving Ms. Rose to the bus station, she told police that she did not wish to provide a statement as she had no injuries. When the police interacted with Ms. Rose that afternoon, they were under a duty to investigate. Ms. Rose provided information to the police at a time when she was not in the accused’s presence and was able to speak candidly. The police noted that Ms. Rose was in good health and did not appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There is no information and there are no circumstances that would suggest that at the time that Ms. Rose provided these statements to police, that she had any reason to lie.

[90] I am satisfied that the hearsay evidence provided by Ms. Rose to the police that afternoon is relevant to Ms. Rose’s state of mind and to show controlling behaviour on the part of the accused.

[91] I am satisfied that this evidence is admissible under the principled exception as threshold reliability exists. I am satisfied that the probative value of this evidence exceeds any prejudicial effect.

December 30, 2020 Incident

[92] On this day, there was another domestic incident.

[93] The accused contacted the police and informed them that Rose was “out of control.” When police arrived, Ms. Rose advised them that they did not have their children for the night and so they decided to buy a 26-ounce bottle of rum to celebrate. They became intoxicated and a verbal argument ensued which led to the accused contacting police to seek assistance for an “unknown reason” according to Ms. Rose.

[94] Police found Ms. Rose calm and easy to deal with. That was not the case with the accused. He became belligerent with police. All efforts to calm him down failed with the result that he was arrested as he was unable to take care of himself and to preserve the peace. Once the accused sobered up, he was released unconditionally.

[95] The occurrence report concludes by saying that the argument between the accused and Ms. Rose was verbal in nature only and there were no grounds for any criminal charges.

[96] Although the Crown asserts that this evidence is relevant to Ms. Rose’s state of mind, that is not the case. Ms. Rose’s state of mind when the police arrived is that she was more than happy to leave and was very calm and easy to deal with. Apart from the argument, Ms. Rose made no allegations of misconduct whatsoever on the part of the accused.

[97] The evidence consists of the accused’s intoxication and his belligerent and uncooperative approach with the police that resulted in his incarceration. This evidence of the accused’s bad conduct on the night in question has no relevance to the issues to be tried and, accordingly, it is inadmissible.

March 12, 2021 Incident

[98] On this day, there was another domestic incident.

[99] At approximately 4:40 a.m. the accused called the police station stating that his girlfriend, Jamie Rose, had become violent, had damaged some of the furniture in his apartment and then had left the apartment wearing only a T-shirt and pants. He said that it was cold and that she was not dressed for the weather. According to police notes, the accused was calling the police as he was concerned about her well-being and that he did not want to press charges.

[100] At 4:59 a.m., the police located Ms. Rose walking down the road. She advised police that her boyfriend had locked her out of the apartment without a coat.

[101] Police took Ms. Rose back to the accused’s residence and spoke to the parties separately. Police noted that both parties stated that they had an intense verbal argument that “apparently got physical.” Despite this, police were unable to observe any marks or physical injuries to either party to corroborate a physical altercation. The police concluded that there were no grounds to charge either party.

[102] When interviewing Ms. Rose, a police officer made note of the fact that she alleged that the accused had hit her in the head and face when she pushed a table over, that he threatened to kill her family and, that a few weeks ago, he broke her phone. The officer was unable to detect any injuries and noted that Ms. Rose made no complaint of any injuries. Ms. Rose was then taken to the YMCA Shelter. The officer’s notes conclude with a notation that Ms. Rose wanted to go to the hospital for a broken arm, an arm that had been broken two months ago. The officer noted that Ms. Rose was not experiencing any pain or discomfort and that she had full mobility of her arm. Although Ms. Rose was calm, the officer noted that she was “rambling on, changing her story each time.”

[103] The Crown submits that this evidence should be admitted as res gestae evidence of criminal harassment by the accused as well to show the state of mind of the deceased.

[104] The information provided by Ms. Rose was not a declaration stimulated by her personal experience. The information provided by her was given to the police after the accused had sought police assistance because he alleged that Ms. Rose had become violent, had damaged some furniture in his apartment and then had left. The information provided by Ms. Rose to Cst. Easter was simply in response to the allegations that had been made by the accused. Accordingly, such evidence is not admissible under that exception.

[105] The evidence is not admissible under the principled exception either. The statements made by Ms. Rose were certainly made under suspicious circumstances as previously detailed. Of particular concern is Cst. Easter’s note that Ms. Rose was rambling and kept changing her story. The accused’s call to the police alleged criminal conduct on the part of Ms. Rose. In view of this, she had a motive to lie when the police were questioning her.

[106] Given the fact that the police determined that there was no basis for any criminal charges to be laid given the competing unsubstantiated allegations, what possible use could a jury make of such evidence? Once again, this evidence invites a trial within a trial given the competing versions of events. There is a danger that the jury would engage in propensity reasoning.

[107] Given all of these concerns, I also conclude that such evidence is inadmissible as the prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value.

[108] For these reasons, this evidence is inadmissible.

Christine Wright’s Telephone Call

[109] About two or three weeks prior to Ms. Rose’s death she had a telephone conversation with her mother.

[110] During the course of that conversation, Ms. Rose advised her mother, among other things, that she was at Dave Cheff’s house and that she was unable to go home to Timmins because the accused had told her that if she left Sudbury again, he would kill her whole family.

[111] This telephone call took place a matter of weeks before Ms. Rose died. This hearsay evidence is relevant to Ms. Rose’s state of mind. The evidence is also relevant to identity, animus and motive.

[112] There are no suspicious circumstances that would call into question the substantive reliability of this evidence. I am satisfied that the threshold reliability has been established.

[113] I am also satisfied that the probative value of this evidence exceeds its prejudicial effect.

Clinton Cool’s Facebook Messages

[114] On or about March 29, 2021, Ms. Rose exchanged messages with Clinton Cool (a.k.a. Buddha) via Facebook Messenger. Ms. Rose made the following statements:

“I need help leaving this guy” “I’m scared for my kids n family” “He keeps all my money, took my health card n bank card, he’s changed my passwords so many times” “He’s punched me out and threatened to kill my kids and family” “I need help” “But I have no money or identification” “He broke my phone in half” “If I leave he has people watching” “I’m in Sudbury” “His name is Liam Stinson” [“No he isn’t pimping me out – not yet anyway” “He has told me he was going to get me gang raped in Ottawa n leave me for dead” “He’s called me weird shit” “Like called me a pedophile”]

[115] The defence has conceded that if this hearsay evidence is admissible, then it is relevant to motive and animus.

[116] The Crown asserts that these messages are admissible as they go to Ms. Rose’s state of mind, and they are relevant to identity, animus and motive. With certain exceptions that will be detailed, I agree. Unlike the previous incidents where evidence has been ruled inadmissible, here, there is no information or evidence to call into question the information that is being provided by Ms. Rose. More to the point, there is no information to suggest that the statements made by Ms. Rose were made in suspicious circumstances.

[117] This evidence is admissible under the principled exception.

[118] The statements that refer to pimping and gang rape in Ottawa are to be excluded as the prejudicial effect exceeds the probative value of those statements. I conclude that the probative value of the balance of this evidence exceeds its prejudicial effect despite the bad conduct that is referenced in the statements made by Ms. Rose.

Messages With the Accused

[119] After the fire, Guy Henri’s tablet was recovered from the scene of the fire. It was determined that on April 3, 2021 at 3:26 a.m., Ms. Rose was using that tablet to communicate with the accused. The following exchange took place:

STINSON: Your out of control Think I would do that ROSE: I’m out of control You’ve been ignoring me and not actually listening to anything at all Ok have fun with whatever you want have it all You are such a awesome person I’m going to shoot a thing of Fetty and be done with it all I’m coming over STINSON: Be nice to me man Ur not nice U told me how to feel ROSE: I hate you STINSON: U make me sound like a price of shit When all I do it’s care ROSE: Your so funny STINSON: I’m not answering ever I Gone I Gone I’m gone U will never see me Like what u wanted ROSE: Wow at least I can still laugh STINSON: Ok Blocked ROSE: No I hate me n do fucked up shit to me And u treat me like a ghost STINSON: I’m gone nab U will never need to see me again like what u wantwd ROSE: Ok I’m going to kill myself so you are absolutely right Yep That’s what I thought That sweater is on your doorstep STINSON: Stop ROSE: [Have fun fucking Kim or whoever your boyfriend] Stop what STINSON: Lol ROSE: Yep STINSON: Talk to me when you’re a good person to me ROSE: Shooting now No one will ever see me again STINSON: Be nice Well it’s too late then Nothing I can do ROSE: Yep Bye [Have fun with my purse and crack You love those things more then anything I have ever done] STINSON: I am not going to see u hurt ur self Tell me when we can meet up ROSE: [You don’t care if I do hurt myself Admit it You got what you wanted out of me and this is it You wanted me do die this way Wow already trying to fuck someone else You can’t even talk to me before I do this eh] Love that you are such a brave man I hate my life STINSON: Comw home And thank ur life style and ur fucking dirty fucking so called friends It’s too late I’m not gonna get brain fucjed by u U told me how u feel That’s all I need to o hear

[120] At 7 p.m. that day, the following exchange took place:

ROSE: Love you STINSON: Love you

[121] The Crown submits that this hearsay evidence is admissible as it goes to Ms. Rose’s state of mind as well as to the issues of identity, animus and motive. With the exception of the passages in square brackets, I agree.

[122] I am satisfied that the probative value of this evidence exceeds its prejudicial effect.

[123] This evidence is admissible.

[124] The accusation in square brackets that the accused stole her purse must be removed given Ms. Rose’s demonstrated propensity to make unfounded allegations of theft.

[125] The passages in square brackets where Ms. Rose asserts that the accused wants her to die are inadmissible as they speak to the present intention of a third party.

Evidence of Darren McNamara

[126] The accused concedes that the proposed evidence from Darren McNamara is admissible with the exception of proposed evidence that the accused was physical with Rose, throwing her around and grabbing her by the throat. The Crown concedes that this evidence is not admissible.

Evidence of David Cheff

[127] In Appendix “A” there are 12 numbered pieces of evidence in connection with evidence to be offered by Mr. Cheff. Number one is admitted by the accused with the exception of the second and third sentences that read “Stinson threatened to murder her, and to beat her. Jeff has seen bruises on Jamie.”

[128] The accused concedes that paragraph 2 is admissible with the exception of the second sentence, “Stinson had beaten her.” The Crown acknowledges that such evidence should be excluded. Subject to the previous comments, the accused acknowledges that the evidence proposed in Paragraphs 3, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 is admissible.

[129] The accused concedes that all of Paragraph 4 is admissible with the exception of the words “was abusive.” The Crown agrees to this exclusion.

[130] The Crown agreed to exclude the evidence set out in Paragraphs 6, 7 and 10.

Conclusion

[131] Counsel for the accused raised the concern that if all of the hearsay evidence that the Crown wished to make use of was admitted, there was a real danger that despite appropriate limiting instructions, the cumulative effect of the evidence would be so great that any limiting instructions may not have the desired effect. As defence counsel submits, in deciding whether to exclude cumulative evidence, the question is not whether the accused could be convicted with less, but rather whether the prejudicial effect of “piling on” the additional evidence outweighs it probative value. See R. v. Howley, 2021 ONCA 386, at para. 17; R. v. Candir, 2009 ONCA 915, at para. 60.

[132] Some of the hearsay evidence that I have excluded is very similar to some of the hearsay evidence that is to be admitted. I am of the opinion that the overall effect of my ruling provides a balanced approach that prevents cumulative evidence from creating a “piling on” effect that would have been unduly prejudicial.

The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Dan Cornell Released: December 13, 2023 Correction Release Date: February 1, 2024

Appendix A: Summary of Hearsay Evidence Rulings

Police August 19, 2020 Incident GSPS SU20079550

1. Jamie Lynn Rose called 9-1-1 to report that her wallet and bank card were stolen by Liam Stinson who he had driven off with some of her belongings, laughing. x
2. She said that she felt that Stinson was a dangerous person. x
3. She said that he was kind of like her boyfriend and that they were seeing each other. x
4. She said she was worried because she knew Stinson to be violent and that he had threatened to drag her out by her hair. x
5. She initially was prepared to provide a formal statement to police but changed her mind. x

Admissibility Criteria/Arguments:

• Necessity: All of Ms. Rose’s ante mortem declarations meet the necessity threshold because she is deceased.
• Res gestae
• Procedural Reliability: Police duty to investigate; keep accurate records.
• Relevance: Rose’s state of mind, identity, animus, motive.
• Substantive Reliability: Audio of 9-1-1 call.

Sources:

• Transcript and audio of 9-1-1 call
• Police incident report - Cst. Warnock

Police October 31, 2020 Incident GSPS SU20079799

1. Jamie Nesci, a bystander who was walking past the home of Liam Stinson called 9-1-1 because she could hear a woman screaming for help and saying that someone was holding them hostage and that he has her phone and he’s hurting her. The woman was begging somebody to call 9-1-1. x
2. Police were dispatched and spoke with both Jamie Lynn Rose and Liam Stinson. x
3. Stinson told police that Jamie Lynn Rose was freaking out and yelling, possibly on drugs and that she had been trying to drive away in his motor vehicle. Stinson also told police that he had tried to restrain her and this is when she started to yell that he would not let her leave and that she was being held hostage. x
4. Rose told police that Stinson had squeezed her so hard that he broke her ribs. She lifted her shirt to show police, but they did not see any bruises. Rose refused EMS or medical attention. x
5. Rose also told police that Stinson stole her jacket which had her debit card in it. She declined to attend police headquarters to provide a formal statement at the time. x
6. Police provided her with a ride downtown and some safety planning. x
7. Later, Stinson called police to advise that his ex-girlfriend Rose had returned to his residence and was banging on the door demanding to be let in. When police attended to speak to him, a door knock to his residence went unanswered and calls went straight to voicemail. x

Admissibility Criteria/Arguments:

• Res gestae
• Substantive Reliability: Audio of 9-1-1 call.
• Procedural Reliability: Police duty to investigate; keep accurate records.
• Relevance: Rose’s state of mind, identity, animus, motive.

Sources:

• Transcript of 9-1-1 call
• Police incident report Cst. Warnock

Police December 20, 2020 Incident GSPS SU21026232

1. See below for additional details from witness Christine Wright. As a result of Ms. Wright’s 9-1-1 call, police were dispatched to attend at the residence of Liam Stinson. A
2. When police arrived at the residence, no one was home. They secured a key from the housing manager and found the home in disarray with visible drug paraphernalia. A
3. Stinson meanwhile called police and advised that Rose had left his residence with her clothing, that she was high on cocaine and that she was upset with him because he had called her a loser. Police noted Stinson to be demonstrating signs consistent with drug consumption. He spoke rapidly and sounded paranoid. x
4. Police located Rose at a cafe in downtown Sudbury. She did not appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Rose told police the following:
   • That she had walked from Cambrian Heights to Frood Road to attempt to continue her conversation with her mother A
   • That she left Stinson’s residence in a hurry A
   • That she was done with the relationship with Stinson A
   • That Stinson was into too much drugs A
   • That she was with Stinson for the last few months since the summer and ended up getting back into crack and cocaine with Stinson A
   • That she is scared of Stinson A
   • That she wanted to return to Timmins A
   • That Stinson is too controlling A
   • That she messaged her mother in a panic and embellished, but felt that she had no other way to seek help as she has no money A
   • That she gets paid every Thursday and has no money currently A
   • That every Thursday she receives $500 and then must e-transfer the money to Stinson to get any funds as she has no bank card A
   • That when she returned with police to retrieve her belongings, her coat was missing from the residence, but Stinson’s coat was there. A
   • That she believed Stinson had taken it just to piss her off A
   • That Stinson has many people in and out of his place, that he used crack cocaine, that he is selling fentanyl and that he got her back into drugs A
   • [That on this night, Stinson wanted her to help him rip someone off for more crack.] x
5. Rose declined to provide a formal statement to police. Police provided her with a pamphlet from Sudbury & Area Victim Services and a referral to Timmins victim services for safety planning. A

Admissibility Criteria/Arguments:

• Portions of 9-1-1 call are res gestae.
• Substantive Reliability: Audio of 9-1-1 call; copy of text messages from Rose to Wright; aspects of Rose’s statements corroborated by Stinson and police witnesses; police duty to investigate and keep accurate records.
• Procedural Reliability: Wright can be cross-examined; Officers can be cross-examined.
• Relevance: Rose’s state of mind, identity, animus and motive.

Sources:

• Transcript 9-1-1 call
• Police occurrence report Cst. Hucal

Christine Wright (Mother of Rose)

1. Rose called her “screaming her head off, saying that Stinson was going to kill her”. x
2. On December 20, 2020, Wright contacted police from Timmins to report that she had received information from her daughter Jamie Lynn Rose on Facebook Messenger that she was being held against her will by two males who had her belongings and who were threatening to kill her. She identified the two as Liam STINSON and a black male. In the 9-1-1 call, Wright relays the following, while she is also talking to and/or texting with Rose on Facebook Messenger: x
   • That Rose was terrified
   • That they are threatening to kill her
   • That she is at 775 Cambrian Heights, Unit 42 [Stinson’s address]
   • That Rose was on the laptop of the guy whose apartment she was stuck in.
   • That she was with a guy named Liam.
   • That he will not let her out.
   • That if she goes missing, that’s where she is.
   • They are trying to get her to sleep with some black guy.
   • That there are two men with her.
   • That they won’t let her out and are holding her hostage.
   • That they busted all her stuff
   • That he is upstairs, and he has all of her clothes, everything. He has her boots and her coat. That she can’t get out of the house.
   • That they were reading the messages she sent her mother and that they could hear Wright talking with Rose
3. After calling 9-1-1 on December 20, 2020, Wright received a call from Rose advising that she was at an internet café near Shoppers Drug Mart in downtown Sudbury. x
4. Wright forwarded screen shots of the text messages sent to her by Rose to Cst. Hucal of the Greater Sudbury Police Service.
   • Messages at 10:19 AM:
     • “Mom can you pleasehelpme?” x
     • “i need to buy a bus ticket, this guy is getting superabusive” x
   • Messages starting at 10:27 AM:
     • “Im really scared” x
     • “Mom please hurry up” x
     • “Im going to go see if someone can give me a smoke, and go to the bathroom. Im hungry, we just got a bunch of food and he just pulls this” x
     • “wakes me up like this” x
     • “Im going to go to the washroom, and a smoke” x
     • “ill let someone else use the computer n come back” x
   • Messages starting at 12:20 PM:
     • “Im at the internet café” x
     • “I waited outside” x
     • “I dunno what to do, I dont get paid until Thursday, i dont have a bank card, and Ive been transferring money to him and he controls everything” x
     • “so if i end up missing n deAD IWAS LAST AT 775 CAMBRIAN HEIGHTS” x
     • “unit 42” x
     • “and Liam Stinson is holding me hostage” x
     • “he is reading this too” x
     • “I dont know why he is doing this” x
     • “bc he signed into my facebook before” x
     • “I just want to go home” x
5. Christine Wright received a call from Rose about 2 or 3 weeks prior to Rose’s death. Rose asked for money and for information to complete a birth certificate application. Rose also told her mother that: A
   • That she and Stinson had an argument, and her phone was smashed
   • That she was at Dave Cheff’s place
   • That she could not return home [to Timmins] because Stinson had threatened to kill her parents and after that would find her kids and kill them as well
   • That Rose told her mother: “I can’t come home. If I leave Sudbury again, he will kill my whole family.”
6. On or about March 29, 2021, Wright received screen shots of Facebook messages between Rose and Rose’s friend Clinton Cool. She received these screen shots from one of her sons’ friends, Craig (Keger) Hansen. She saved these messages and later provided them to police. A

Admissibility Criteria/Arguments:

• Res gestae: Portions of 9-1-1 call are res gestae.
• Substantive Reliability: Copy of 9-1-1 call; copy of text messages from Rose to Wright; aspects of Rose’s statements corroborated by Stinson and police witnesses; police duty to investigate and keep accurate records; Wright under oath; copy actual text messages.
• Procedural Reliability: Wright can be cross-examined; Officers can be cross-examined; other evidence from witnesses placing Rose at the Cheff residence.
• Relevance: Rose’s state of mind, identity, animus and motive.
• Close in time to the arson.

Sources:

• Transcript of statement of Christine Wright dated January 12, 2022 at p. 2
• Witness statement
• PH transcript
• 9-1-1 call and transcript
• Police incident report, Cst. Hucal
• Text message screen shots, Record, Vol. 1, Tab 10, Exhibit I
• PH Transcript 19Sept22, at p. 7, line 23 to p.
• PH Transcript, p. 8, lines 22 – 27
• PH Transcript 19Sept22, p. 20, lines 8 – 29
• PH Transcript 19Sept22, at p. 40
• Record, Vol I, Tab 10, Exhibit “I”
• Record, Vol IV, Tab 24B at p. 3
• PH Transcript 19Sept22, p. 12, line 27 to p. 13, line 14 (copies of actual FB messages)
• PH Transcript 19Sept22, p. 13, line 21 ff
• PH Transcript 19Sept22, p. 14, lines 12 – 14
• PH Transcript 19Sept22, p. 15, line 12 to p. 17, line 23
• Copy of actual messages

Police December 30, 2020 Incident GSPS SU20094864

1. Police responded to a call from Stinson who said that his girlfriend was out of control. When they arrived at his residence, Rose was present. Rose advised police: x
   • That they had been drinking rum to celebrate
   • That a verbal argument developed
   • That Stinson became belligerent and difficult to deal with.
2. Rose was calm and was willing to attend the shelter for the night. x
3. Stinson was belligerent with police, assumed a fighting stance and started swearing and yelling racial slurs and challenging the officers. x
4. Stinson was arrested to prevent breach of peace and for Rose’s safety. x

Admissibility Criteria/Arguments:

• Substantive Reliability: Police duty to investigate; keep accurate records.
• Procedural Reliability: Officers can be cross-examined.
• Relevance: Rose’s state of mind, narrative (Rose was back in Sudbury just 10 days after the prior incident), identity, animus, motive.

Sources:

• Occurrence report of Cst. Caverson

Police March 12, 2021 Incident GSPS SU21018193

1. On March 21, 2021, at 4:40 a.m., Stinson called police stating that Rose had become violent, had damaged some furniture in the apartment and then left. When police arrived, Stinson advised them that Rose had left the residence only wearing a t-shirt and pants. x
2. Police located Rose walking down the road. She appeared okay and advised police that: x
   • Stinson had locked her out of the apartment without a coat
   • That they had a verbal argument that became physical
3. Cst. Easter spoke with Rose while Cst. Genoe spoke with Stinson. Rose told Cst. Easter: x
   • That Stinson hit her in the head a few times after she pushed a table over
   • That Stinson had threatened to kill her family
   • That a few weeks ago he broke her phone
   • That she pays him rent
   • That they have been in a relationship for 10 months and were residing together at 42 – 775 Cambrian Heights Drive
4. Rose was taken to a shelter for the evening and said she would return the following day to retrieve the rest of her belongings. x

Admissibility Criteria/Arguments:

• Substantive Reliability: Police duty to investigate; keep accurate records; relationship timeline corroborated by other evidence.
• Procedural Reliability: Officers can be cross-examined.
• Relevance: Rose’s state of mind, identity, animus and motive, narrative.

Sources:

• Occurrence report and notes of Cst. Easter

Clinton Cool (aka Buddha) Friend of Rose from Timmins

In submissions, the Crown conceded these lines ought to be redacted.

1. Facebook messages, sent on or about March 29, 2021, from Jamie Lynn Rose (aka Sally Skellington) to her friend Clinton Cool in which Rose indicates the following: A
   • “I need help leaving this guy”
   • “I’m scared for my kids n family”
   • “He keeps all my money, took my health card n bank card, he’s changed my passwords so many times”
   • “He’s punched me out and threatened to kill my kids and family”
   • “I need help”
   • “But I have no money or identification”
   • “He broke my phone in half”
   • “If I leave he has people watching”
   • “I’m in Sudbury”
   • “His name is Liam Stinson”
   • “No he isn’t pimping me out – not yet anyway” x
   • “He has told me he was going to get me gang raped in Ottawa n leave me for dead” x
   • “He’s called me weird shit” x
   • “Like called me a pedophile” x

Admissibility Criteria/Arguments:

• Substantive Reliability: Original evidence, legible copy.
• Procedural Reliability: Clinton Cool will be subject to cross-examination.
• Relevance: Rose’s state of mind, identity, animus and motive.

Sources:

• Written
• PH Transcript of Christine Wright

Jamie Lynn Rose Facebook Messenger texts with STINSON

On April 3, 2021 starting at 3:26 am, Rose was using Guy Henri’s tablet (later recovered from the fire scene) to communicate with Liam STINSON:

1. She asked Stinson for the return of her new pursue, all her makeup, new underwear, and socks. He denies he has them. She says “have fun with my purse and crack”, “you love those things more then anything I have ever done” x
2. “I hate you” A
3. “I hate men do fucked up shit to me” A
4. “And you treat me like a ghost” A
5. “I’m going to kill myself” “That sweater is on your doorstep” A
6. “Shooting now” A
   • [“You don’t care if I do hurt myself x
   • “Admit it x
   • “You got what you wanted out of me and this is it x
   • “You wanted me to die this way x
   • “Wow already trying to fuck someone else x
   • “You can’t even talk to me before I do this eh”] x
   • “Love that you are such a brave man” A
   • “I hate my life” A

DEFENCE COMMENT – Defence does not object to comments from “Love that you are such a brave man” and following.

Admissibility Criteria/Arguments:

• Substantive Reliability: Copy of text messages.
• Relevance: Rose’s state of mind (despairing, victimized, desperate), identity, animus, motive, narrative – the texts show that the animosity in the relationship reached a level of toxicity and antagonism where Rose hated Stinson, where she genuinely believed he would steal her belongings and that he wanted her to die, just a week before she was killed.

Sources:

• Screen shots
• Record, Vol I, Tab 10, Exhibit J

Darren McNamara (Friend of Stinson and Rose)

In submissions, Crown withdrew its application for an admissibility ruling re #3.

1. Rose told McNamara that she was upset at times about situations in the relationship with Stinson A
2. Around three months prior to the fire, Rose told McNamara that she wanted to leave Stinson. She tried to leave him before, a couple of times, but he went and got her. One of these times, about a month before the fire, he went with Stinson to get Rose from the place that was ultimately targeted by STINSON. A
3. Rose told McNamara that Stinson was physical with her, throwing her around, grabbing her by the throat and stuff x
4. About two or three weeks prior to the fire Rose arrived at McNamara’s home with a few of her things. She said she wanted to talk with him about staying there. While she was there, she told McNamara that she wanted to be away from Stinson. She was upset. Stinson arrived and was saying that there’s something going on between Rose and McNamara. Rose was trying to calm things down with Stinson being physical and aggressive. A

Admissibility Criteria/Arguments:

• Procedural Reliability: McNamara can be cross-examined.
• Substantive Reliability: Sworn testimony; corroborated by Riley Roy who was present during altercation between Stinson and McNamara over Stinson’s jealousy relating to Rose, who was at McNamara’s house (– see prior discreditable conduct evidence chart).
• Relevance: Narrative, Rose’s state of mind, identity, animus, motive.

Sources:

• Transcripts

David Cheff (Only survivor, Friends with Rose since her youth)

1. His house was a safe house for Jamie. [Stinson threatened to murder her, and to beat her. Cheff has seen bruises on Jamie.] She tried to leave Stinson many times and he would not let her leave. A
2. Jamie would call Cheff crying because of relationship issues. Stinson had beaten her. A
3. Jamie Lynn Rose was having issues with her then-boyfriend [Liam Stinson] A
4. Rose told Cheff that her relationship with Stinson was toxic, [was abusive], and that she did not want to be involved but was almost scared to leave. That’s why Rose would come to Cheff’s place as a safe spot. A
5. He would receive calls from Rose about the relationship. Rose told Cheff that stuff wasn’t that great at the house, and she needed time off. She’d come over ‘cause they were fighting or something wasn’t good. A
6. He has observed hand marks and bruises on her (grabbing of the arms). Rose told Cheff that she would get into scraps with Stinson, like fist fights, or push come to shove. x
7. He would frequently see injuries on Rose that she showed him; mainly the bruises were on her arms or her legs; she also confided in Kyla Leebody x
8. Stinson would call Rose while Rose was at Cheff’s residence, it would be a argument, or some text messages would come through and Rose would show Cheff A
9. One of the text messages from Liam said “come home or I’m going to kill you”; this was between December – February before the fire A
10. Rose told Cheff she had gone to stay at a few places, but anytime she’d go anywhere, Stinson would arrive and start banging on the door and apparently would start shit and bring her back home x
11. He has observed hand marks and bruises on her (grabbing of the arms). Rose told Cheff that she would get into scraps with Stinson, like fist fights, or push come to shove. A
12. He would frequently see injuries on Rose that she showed him; mainly the bruises were on her arms or her legs; she also confided in Kyla Leebody A
13. Stinson would call Rose while Rose was at Cheff’s residence, it would be a argument, or some text messages would come through and Rose would show Cheff A
14. One of the text messages from Liam said “come home or I’m going to kill you”; this was between December – February before the fire A
15. Rose told Cheff she had gone to stay at a few places, but anytime she’d go anywhere, Stinson would arrive and start banging on the door and apparently would start shit and bring her back home A

Admissibility Criteria/Arguments:

• Procedural Relevance: Cheff can be cross-examined.
• Substantive Relevance: Sworn testimony; corroborated by Rose’s own text messages to mother; observations by Cheff of injuries on Rose; observations of Cheff of threatening text messages shown to him by Rose.
• Relevance: Narrative – explains why she went to stay at the Cheff residence and when, Rose’s state of mind, identity, animus, motive.

Sources:

• Transcripts
• Statement, 1Sept21, p. 1; p. 3
• Sworn statement, 9Sept22, p. 12
• PH Transcript 20Sept22, p. 54, line 26
• PH Transcript 20Sept22, p. 56, lines 7ff
• PH Transcript 20Sept22, p. 56, lines 16
• PH transcript 20Sept22, p. 56, lines 19 ff
• PH Transcript 20Sept22, p. 57, lines 1 ff
• PH Transcript 20Sept22, p. 57, lines 24 ff
• PH Transcript 20Sept22, p. 58, lines 2 ff

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-1297 DATE: 2023-12-13 CORRECTION DATE: 2024-02-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE HIS MAJESTY THE KING Applicant – and – Liam Stinson Respondent CORRECTED Voir DIre Ruling Ante-Mortem Statements Cornell. J.

Released: December 13, 2023 Correction Release Date: February 1, 2024