R. v. Lalo (C.), (2003) 215 N.S.R.(2d) 262 (SC)

• Judge: Robertson, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: May 05, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2003), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 262 (SC);2003 NSSC 156

R. v. Lalo (C.) (2003), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 262 (SC);

 675 A.P.R. 262

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.032

Her Majesty The Queen (Crown/applicant) v. Cesar Lalo (defence/respondent)

(CR 193858; 2003 NSSC 156)

Indexed As: R. v. Lalo (C.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Robertson, J.

May 5, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was charged with 23 counts respecting sexual offences against 11 complainants. The Crown sought to admit, as similar fact evidence, the evidence respecting each count on all other counts. Further, the Crown sought admission of evidence respecting previous convictions on other related sexual offences as similar fact evidence.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the application in part.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - When admis-sible - The accused was charged with 23 counts respecting sexual offences against 11 complainants - The Crown sought to admit, as similar fact evidence, the evidence respecting each count on all other counts - Further, the Crown sought admission of evidence respecting previous convictions on other related sexual offences as similar fact evidence - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the application in part - First, the evidence common to all counts in four identified areas (use of threats, warning to keep alleged sexual acts a secret, use of massage-relaxation techniques on victims and use of a particular isolated location to commit assaults) was admissible as similar fact evidence on all counts - The evidence was relevant and material and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect - Assuming there was an air of reality to the accused's allegation of collusion for profit, the Crown established on a balance of probabilities that the similar fact evidence was not so tainted with collusion as to warrant exclusion of the evidence - The evidence respecting prior convictions was not admissible as similar fact evidence because the high degree of prejudice outweighed the probative value of the evidence.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 296, consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. L.E.B., [2001] N.S.J. No. 386 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. L.E.D., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 111; 97 N.R. 321; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 142, consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 8; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 385, consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. L.B.; R. v. M.A.G. (1997), 102 O.A.C. 104; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 524, consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Boardman, [1975] A.C. 421 (H.L.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. Handy (J.) (2002), 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. D.A.H. (1997), 161 N.S.R.(2d) 204; 477 A.P.R. 204; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 238 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. H.C.G. (1995), 66 B.C.A.C. 69; 108 W.A.C. 69 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. Guay, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 18; 23 N.R. 451; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 536; 89 D.L.R.(3d) 532; 6 C.R.(3d) 130, consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. Christie (W.H.M.) (2002), 205 N.S.R.(2d) 131; 643 A.P.R. 131 (S.C.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 918; 75 N.R. 6; 20 O.A.C. 200; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 481, consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. W.H.S., [1999] O.T.C. Uned. 764 (Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. Shearing (I.) (2002), 290 N.R. 225; 168 B.C.A.C. 161; 275 W.A.C. 161; 165 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. W.B.B., [1998] B.C.J. No. 641 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1; 18 C.R.(4th) 261; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 112, consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. W.B.C. (2001), 153 C.C.C.(3d) 575 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. C.P.K. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 252 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. C.B. (2003), 167 O.A.C. 264 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. Johnston (M.) (1992), 117 N.S.R.(2d) 83; 324 A.P.R. 83 (C.A.), consd. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. Sweitzer, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 949; 42 N.R. 550; 37 A.R. 294; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 11].

Counsel:

Catherine Cogswell and Robert W. Fetterly, for the Crown/applicant;

Maurice G. Smith, Q.C., and Luke Merrimen, for the defendant/respondent.

This application was heard on April 23, 24, 28, 29 and May 5, 2003, at Halifax, N.S., before Robertson, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, whose following oral judgment of May 5, 2003, was released in writing on July 23, 2003.