ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Ryan Mullins, for the Crown
- and -
JAMAR BAILEY
Self-Represented
HEARD: August 11, October 1, November 12, 2025
REASONS FOR DECISION
D.E. HARRIS J.
1Mr. Jamar Bailey was found guilty of robbery and firearm offences. During the trial, in cross-examination, he elicited from his common law wife, Chakeba Kelly who was called as a Crown witness, that a good deal of cash was missing from her home directly following the police execution of a search warrant there on June 9, 2022. Mr. Bailey indicated at trial that he wanted to pursue the issue, alleging that the police had stolen the cash. I held that because this line of evidence implicated abuse of process, it would be appropriate that it be considered only after the finding of guilt or innocence: see R. v. Mack 1988 24 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903 at para. 141.
2After the finding of guilt was made, Mr. Bailey pursued the abuse of process issue. These were several evidentiary components: 1. Ms. Kelly’s evidence from the trial at large was applied to the abuse of process motion; 2. Some of the various search officers’ evidence from the trial at large was incorporated with agreement into the motion as well; 3. Mr. Bailey called some other officers as witnesses on the motion; and 4. Mr. Bailey himself testified on the motion that the money had disappeared when he looked for it shortly after the police executed the warrant. He had not testified at trial.
3The abuse of process motion was bifurcated. The first stage was evidentiary in nature and was to determine whether the police stole the money. If it were found that they did, the second stage would be to determine the appropriate remedy.
4This is my decision on the first stage after marshalling all the evidence from the trial and the motion. I will briefly review the evidence first. Ms. Kelly testified in the trial that Mr. Bailey had savings that were possibly kept in their bedroom. She was not sure, however. She did not think it would be kept anywhere else. She had seen it in the room but did not know where it was kept. She saw it before his arrest but was not sure when. It was maybe May of 2022. She said it was over $15,000; it had been saved from his work salary and tips from work. I assume the latter bit of information is hearsay based on what Mr. Bailey told her.
5All the police officers who were engaged in the search when asked during the trial and during the abuse of process motion denied ever seeing any cash or taking it. Their notes did not assist in determining which police officers searched the room in which Mr. Bailey said the money was kept. I do not infer anything nefarious from this; the lack of notes when there are no seizures made in a particular place is more or less routine. I find, however, that clearly at least one police officer was in the room the cash was in as all the rooms in the house were searched.
6Mr. Bailey testified on the motion. He said the cash was from savings from his work as a truck driver. He would do deliveries and installations consisting of setting up ping pong tables or treadmills and the like. He would often get tips. Mr. Bailey could not say how much of the money was from his salary and how much was from tips. The cash was stored in two different pockets in a pair of jeans contained in a suitcase in a guest room next to his daughter’s room on the second floor of the 26 Havelock Road address. There was no lock on the suitcase. The total amount in 100s and 50s was exactly $23,000. $10,000 was in one pocket and $13,000 was in another pocket of the jeans. There were two burgundy suitcases, one on top of the other in a corner of the guest room. These suitcases appeared in some of the police photographic evidence created during the execution of the warrant. Although Mr. Bailey did not seem sure, he testified that the money was in the bigger suitcase which lay under the smaller one.
7Mr. Bailey said that there was no space in his bedroom to keep the suitcase. He would not keep the cash in a drawer because someone could see it and take it.
8Mr. Bailey testified that Ms. Kelly would have seen the money a few times, but he was not sure when. He was not able to recall how much she saw and precisely when it would have been. It could have been quite a bit before. The money was kept in the home rather than the bank as a saving technique.
9That is a brief summary of the high points of the evidence. In law, Mr. Bailey carries the burden of proof to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the police stole the money from him, committing a serious criminal offence and triggering an abuse of process inquiry.
10There are some problems with the evidence Mr. Bailey relies on. Ms. Kelly was consistently vague in every important aspect of her evidence. It was unclear how much money she saw, it was unclear when she saw it, it was unclear where she saw it. She fudged on all three of these topics. It appeared that her evidence was aimed at confirming there was a substantial amount of cash in the home but was deliberately short on specifics in order to allow the details to be filled in later. That vagueness, to my mind, reflected badly on her credibility.
11On Ms. Kelly’s evidence, she saw about $15,000 not too long before the search warrant was executed. Mr. Bailey said in his evidence that it was $23,000. For Ms. Kelly to have determined that it was $15,000 she would have to see the cash counted. The two stacks of cash would have been quite large as even if constituted out of all $100 bills, there would have been 230 of them. Ms. Kelly did not testify that she did count the money and in the circumstances, recounted by her, it makes little sense that she would. Furthermore, for the money to grow $8000 from $15,000 to $23,000 in a matter of a few months, based on how Mr. Bailey accumulated the cash, seems unlikely.
12Mr. Bailey could not say how much of the $23,000 was from his salary—which salary was direct deposited to his bank—and how much of it was tips. While a precise breakdown could not be reasonably expected, it is more than a little odd that he could not relay some information with respect to how much came from the two different sources. It was also slightly odd why he would take money securely stowed in the bank and hide it in the significantly less secure suitcases in the home. He said that the cash was kept in the home instead of in the bank to avoid spending it. But the contrary seems much more sensible; money in the bank is more difficult to spend than cash in the home. The cash is at the ready in the home while getting money from a bank requires additional steps to access. This was demonstrated by Mr. Bailey’s evidence that he bought some furniture several months earlier using the cash.
13The perfectly round amounts of cash, while not a major factor, was also strange. There was exactly $10,000 in one pocket and exactly $13,000 in the other, for a total of $23,000. The process by which the cash was accumulated would seem to belie exact whole numbers.
14The only evidence of the money being stolen is from Ms. Kelly and Mr. Bailey. There is no direct or circumstantial support. I find that based on the evidence and submissions, Mr. Bailey has failed to meet his burden to show the police stole his money. As this factual issue was at the root of the abuse of process issue, the abuse of process motion is hereby dismissed. The matter will now move to the sentencing stage.
D.E. HARRIS J.
Released: January 13, 2026
CITATION.: R v. Jamar Bailey, 2026 ONSC 253
COURT FILE NO: CR-24-26
DATE: 2026 01 13
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
JAMAR BAILEY
REASONS FOR DECISION
D.E. HARRIS J.
Released: January 13, 2026