R. v. Mason (R.A.), (1996) 180 A.R. 282 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 22, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 180 A.R. 282 (QB)

R. v. Mason (R.A.) (1996), 180 A.R. 282 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Ricky Allen Mason

(Action No. 9509-01505-C0)

Indexed As: R. v. Mason (R.A.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Peace River

Rooke, J.

January 22, 1996.

Summary:

The Crown applied on a voir dire to intro­duce similar fact evidence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ad­mitted most of the similar fact evidence. The court excluded some of the evidence where the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

Criminal Law - Topic 4352.1

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding similar fact evidence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench set out a jury instruction on similar fact evidence: (1) the evidence may never be used to conclude that, because of the evi­dence, the accused is the sort of person who would commit the offence charged, and on that basis, infer that he is guilty of the offence; (2) the trier(s) of fact is to determine whether the Crown has proved that a) the similar act was com­mitted, b) it was simi­lar to the act being considered in the other evidence against the accused, c) it was the accused who committed the similar act(s), d) there is no collaboration or conspiracy to concoct false accusations against an accused, and e) it is likely that the same person com­mitted the similar act and the one(s) in the other evidence against the accused; and (3) if the test in (2) is met, the evidence can only be used when con­sidering the par­ticular issue(s) to which the judge has allowed it to be con­sidered - See para­graph 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 5212

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the basic tenants of evidence in criminal cases applicable to similar fact evidence con­sisted of 3 propositions: (1) all evidence that is relevant is admissible, unless sub­ject of some exclusionary rule; (2) as an exclusionary rule, evidence is not admis­sible, as it relates to similar fact evi­dence, for the purpose (the "excluded pur­pose") of showing that a person, from his criminal conduct or character in the past (similar fact or acts) is likely to have com­mitted the offence to which he stands charged; and (3) an exclusionary rule may be the subject of an exception, and the evidence may be admissible, in the case of similar fact evidence, if the purpose of its intro­duction is relevant to an issue in dispute before the trier(s) of fact - See paragraph 9.

Criminal Law - Topic 5212

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a ruling on the admissibility of similar fact evi­dence "should not normally be given until all of the other of the Crown's evidence was heard so that the alleged similar fact evidence could be considered for its rel­evance to issues in dispute as raised by the Crown's other evidence. ... [I]t is arguable that such admissibility should not be ruled upon in advance in regards to 'potential' defences, not apparent from defence cross-examination in the course of the Crown's evidence ... until the actual defences have manifested themselves in the defence evidence, and the Crown sought such a ruling in the context of Crown rebuttal." - The court stated that there was "no harm in addressing a potential issue that may arise by way of defence" - See paragraphs 5 to 7.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that in determining the ad­missibility of similar fact evidence the court had to ask the Crown: (1) what issue is the similar fact evidence directed to; (2) what is the nature of the similar fact evi­dence and how does it relate to the above issue; (3)(a) is the issue relevant (logically probative) to a matter in dispute; (3)(b) if yes, is it cogent to the inference that the Crown would invite the trier of fact to draw to the issue in dispute other than solely propensity or disposition; and (3)(c) if still admissible, does its probative value outweigh its prejudicial effect - See para­graph 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the standard of proof for the admission of "external" and "internal" similar fact evidence - The court opined that with respect to external similar fact evidence "the applicable standard for the establishment of any fact before the trier(s) of fact, should be on a balance of prob­abilities, unless, as a matter of law, in the opinion of the judge in instructions to the trier(s) of fact, the evidence may itself have a conclusive effect with respect to the determination of guilt (for example in establishing identity), in which case the test is beyond a reasonable doubt." - See paragraphs 42 to 46.

Criminal Law - Topic 5213

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - When admissible - The Crown sought to intro­duce similar fact evidence that the accused had engaged in homosexual activity with persons similarly aged in similar circum­stances as alleged by the complainants - The Crown claimed that in both circum­stances the accused demonstrated a will­ingness to perpetrate such acts in the pres­ence of other adolescents and within close physical proximity to adults - The event that the Crown sought to introduce occurred 17 years before the events that the accused was presently charged with - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ad­mitted the similar fact evidence - The court excluded part of the similar fact evidence because the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

Criminal Law - Topic 5214.4

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Similar acts - To prove propensity - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench interpreted R. v. M.H.C. (S.C.C.) and R. v. C.R.B. (S.C.C.) to say that "in exceptional cases, one could admit similar fact evidence that goes merely to disposi­tion and propensity, without some other purpose being shown, where disposition and propensity are themselves relevant to an issue in dispute, and the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect" - See paragraph 12.

Evidence - Topic 1251

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5212 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81: 55 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 76 C.R.(3d) 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 385; 73 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1, consd. [para. 3].

Makin v. New South Wales (Attorney General), [1894] A.C. 57 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

R.S. v. A.L. (1994), 158 A.R. 227 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 7].

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, affing. (1991), 107 N.S.R.(2d) 231; 290 A.P.R. 231; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 11 C.R.(4th) 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Boardman v. D.P.P. (1974), 60 Cr. App. R. 165 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 9].

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, refd to. [paras. 10, 46, footnote 3].

R. v. Cloutier, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 709; 28 N.R. 1; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 1; 99 D.L.R.(3d) 577; 12 C.R.(3d) 10, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 1 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 36 C.R.(3d) 1; [1984] 2 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 66 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

R. v. L.E.D., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 111; 97 N.R. 321; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 142; 71 C.R.(3d) 1; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 501; 39 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

R. v. M.H.C., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763; 123 N.R. 63; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 4 C.R.(4th) 1, consd. [para. 11].

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. 12].

R. v. Robertson, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 918; 75 N.R. 6; 20 O.A.C. 200, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Green, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 228; 82 N.R. 194; 52 Man.R.(2d) 64; 62 C.R.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Tierney (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 402, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Huot (1993), 66 O.A.C. 155; 16 O.R.(3d) 214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Pierre (R.W.) (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 99; 100 W.A.C. 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. G.F.P. (1994), 70 O.A.C. 350; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 176; 29 C.R.(4th) 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Moore (1994), 73 O.A.C. 277; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. S.B.A. (1991), 2 B.C.A.C. 232; 5 W.A.C. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Morris (1969), 54 Cr. App. R. 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Lawson (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 372; 14 C.R.N.S. 377 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 19 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 678; 21 C.R.(4th) 186; 15 C.R.R.(2d) 193; 45 M.V.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Ross, [1979] 6 W.W.R. 435 (B.C.S.C.), affd. [1980] 5 W.W.R. 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Neale (R.S.) (1995), 169 A.R. 378; 97 W.A.C. 378; 31 Alta. L.R.(3d) 424 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. R.S.N. - see R. v. Neale (R.S.).

R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321; 25 C.R.(4th) 137; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Mitchell (1989), 33 O.A.C. 360; 70 C.R.(3d) 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477; 140 D.L.R.(3d) 612, refd to. [para. 49].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Boilard, Guide to Criminal Evidence (Looseleaf) (1991), pp. 4, 5, 6 [para. 5]; paras. 4.006 [para. 29]; 4.007(1) [para. 13]; 4.012 [para. 21]; 4.014 [paras. 24, 25]; 4.015 [para. 14]; 4.016 [para. 27]; 4.019(1) [para. 44]; 4.020 [para. 46]; 4.023 [para. 46]; 4.025, 4.026 [para. 5]; 4.06 [para. 36]; 4.09 [para. 30].

Phipson on Evidence (14th Ed. 1990), p. 397, para. 17-53 [para. 30].

Counsel:

W.J. De Venz, for the Crown;

T.D. Clackson, Q.C., for the accused.

This application was heard by Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Peace River, who delivered the following judgment on January 22, 1996.