Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-10000063-0000 DATE: 20231109 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING Applicant – and – CJAY HOBBS Respondent
Counsel: Arian Khader and Heather Lamourie, for the Applicant Leora Shemesh, and Rameez Sewani, for the Respondent
HEARD: October 10 and 11, 2023
Pretrial Ruling
B.P. O’MARRA J.
[1] The respondent is charged with first degree murder. He is alleged to have driven the shooter to the scene of the killing and to have driven away with the shooter back in his vehicle. The vehicle was located the next day engulfed in flames in an area north of Toronto. The respondent was arrested six months later. The shooter was never identified or arrested. DNA of the respondent was detected on a glove found on the ground near the burning vehicle.
[2] The Crown sought rulings on the admissibility of the following:
- Photos of gas cans that were retrieved from the respondent’s phone as well as gas cans found in his residence on his arrest six months after the shooting.
- Evidence of a text exchange dated 16 days before the shooting between the respondent and someone referred to as Junior. The exchange included photos of the interior of the respondent’s vehicle and words from the respondent as follows: “Tell me where to look.”
On October 11, 2023, I ruled all of the contentious evidence was inadmissible at trial. These are my brief reasons.
[3] At the outset of the pretrial proceedings counsel for the respondent advised that there would be an admission at trial that the respondent was driving the vehicle at all material times on the day of the shooting. The DNA on the glove found near the burning vehicle was also not contested. There would not be an explicit admission that the respondent was involved in the burning of the vehicle.
[4] The Crown sought admission of the gas cans as after the fact conduct. The issue of this evidence became moot after the respondent testified at trial. He told the jury that while he had no criminal intention related to the shooting incident he urged the alleged shooter to destroy the vehicle. This placed the after the fact conduct before the jury for consideration subject to my instructions as to its limited use.
[5] The text exchange with someone named Junior was tendered by the Crown as evidence that the ultimate victim was targeted by the respondent. “Junior” was never identified. It is entirely unclear what the context of those words was. There was no mention of an alleged target.
[6] It would be dangerous and speculative to leave these few meagre words with the jury as evidence that the respondent was stalking or targeting the ultimate victim of the shooting.
[7] The applications to admit all of this evidence are dismissed.
B.P. O’Marra J.
Released: November 9, 2023