Sukhraj Hundal

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's other discreditable conduct in a criminal trial for extortion, uttering threats, assault, sexual assault, and distributing an intimate image.

The proposed evidence included the accused's marital status, gambling problem, reputation for violence, and suicidal threats/attempts.

The court ruled on the admissibility of this evidence, applying the test for discreditable conduct.

The court found all proposed evidence admissible, including the suicide-related conduct, determining its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect, subject to appropriate jury instructions against propensity reasoning.

The applicant, Mr. Sharma, sought a conditional stay of his jury trial until he received funding for his defence, arguing that his Charter rights would be infringed without counsel.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Mr. Sharma had not demonstrated a lack of financial means despite reasonable efforts, nor that counsel was essential for a fair trial given his education, English proficiency, and the trial judge's duty to assist unrepresented accused.