Voir la source de Caractère de l'accusé

{{en|Character_of_Accused}}
{{fr|Caractère_de_l%27accusé}}
{{Currency2|August|2021}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderCharacter}}
==Principes généraux==
{{seealso|Cross-Examinations#Cross-Examination of the Accused|Character of Non-Accused Persons}}
Character evidence of the accused consists of any evidence that relates to the accused's conduct or reputation outside of the period of the alleged offence in order to make the inference that during the time of the alleged offence the accused had acted in conformity with that conduct or reputation. <ref>
Discreditable evidence is any "conduct or information about the accused that is morally objectionable or apt to demonstrate that he or she has a contemptible or reprehensible character".  Paciocco and Stuesser, The Law of Evidence 6th Ed. (2011) at 51
</ref>

This evidence can take the form of:
# reports of the accused's reputation in the community
# the opinion of someone who knows the accused personally
# specific past acts from which conduct can be inferred.

Whether the evidence is admissible depends on whether it is good character or bad character. The former being generally permissible and the latter being generally impermissible.

Any time bad character evidence is admitted under one of the exceptions the judge must also assess whether the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Villeda|2dg5s|2010 ABCA 351 (CanLII)|265 CCC (3d) 433}}{{TheCourtABCA}}
</ref>

Before bad character can be admitted the judge must be satisfied that:<ref>Villeda</ref>
*the evidence was relevant to an issue at trial
*outside of accused general bad character
*probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect

General bad character or propensity is presumptively inadmissible.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Graham|ggbt0|2015 ONCA 113 (CanLII)|330 OAC 394}}{{perONCA|Weiler JA}}{{atL|ggbt0|23}}<br>
</ref>
The reason is to avoid "moral prejudice" and "reasoning prejudice."<ref>
{{ibid1|Graham}}<br>
</ref>

Moral prejudice is where the cases are decided based on the "kind of person" the accused is perceived to be is rather than on what they have done.<REf>
{{CanLIIRP|Norris|jcbzx|2020 ONCA 847 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Fairburn ACJ}} at para 23 ("Moral prejudice results where triers of fact decide cases, not based on what the accused has done, but based on the kind of person the trier of fact perceives the accused to be")<Br>
see also Handy at para 31 and 36<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Lo|j9zlg|2020 ONCA 622 (CanLII)|393 CCC (3d) 543}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{AtL|j9zlg|110}}<Br>
</ref>

Reasoning prejudice is where evidence of similar conduct creates "confusion" and "distracts" the trier of fact from the purpose of focusing on the charges.<ref>
{{supra1|Norris}} at para 23 ("Reasoning prejudice results where similar act evidence gives rise to confusion and distracts the trier of fact from its proper focus on the charges before the court.")
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Good Character Evidence==
The defence may adduce certain good character of the accused.

An accused may call witnesses who will testify to his good character as relevant to show the accused is credible or that the accused is unlikely to have committed the offence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Tarrant|g1j8t|1981 CanLII 1635 (ON CA)|63 CCC (2d) 385}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Elsmori|gc6d1|1985 CanLII 3545 (ON CA)|23 CCC (3d) 503}}{{perONCA|Dubin JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Kootenay|2dbkh|1994 ABCA 24 (CanLII)|87 CCC (3d) 109}}{{perABCA|Kerans JA}}<br>
</ref>

; Limitations on Type of Good Character Evidence
The evidence of good character is limited to the accused's general reputation in the community with respect to relevant traits such as honesty, morality and humanity.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Mohan|1frt1|1994 CanLII 80 (SCC)|89 CCC (3d) 402}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atp|415}} (CCC)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Clarke|1v98k|1998 CanLII 14604 (ON CA)|129 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Close|g1d80|1982 CanLII 1914 (ON CA)|68 CCC (2d) 105}}{{perONCA-H|Brooke JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Demyen|g7hlt|1976 CanLII 970 (SK CA)|31 CCC (2d) 383}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Boles| (1979), 43 CCC (3d) 414}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dees|htvq4|1978 CanLII 2269 (ON CA)|40 CCC (2d) 58}}{{perONCA-H|Arnup JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|S(RJ)|g9cjm|1985 CanLII 3575 (ON CA)|19 CCC (3d) 115}}{{perONCA|Lacourciere JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Gonzague|gd2k9|1983 CanLII 3541 (ON CA)|4 CCC (3d) 505}}{{perONCA|Martin JA}}
</ref>
This can include business community reputation.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Levasseur|2dl03|1987 ABCA 70 (CanLII)|35 CCC (3d) 136}}{{perABCA|Harradence JA}}<br>
</ref>
The witness however cannot give any personal opinion on the accused's character.<ref>
{{supra1|Clarke}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Profit|g1dms|1992 CanLII 7513 (ON CA)|16 CR (4th) 332}}{{perONCA|Goodman JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Grosse|g9gfk|1983 CanLII 3501 (NS CA)|9 CCC (3d) 465}}{{perNSCA|Morrison JA}}{{atps|473-74}}
</ref>

The crown may cross-examine the accused's character witness on the grounds of their belief and the particular facts from which they based their conclusion.<ref>
Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence 2010 ss. 31.02
</ref>

; No Specific Good Acts
Specific good acts of the accused are not admissible to show good character.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Long|htxr5|1902 CanLII 129 (QC CA)| (1902) 5 CCC 493}}{{perQCCA-H|Wurtele J}}{{atp|498}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Knuff|fp5zc|1980 ABCA 23 (CanLII)|52 CCC (2d) 523}}{{perABCA|Moir JA}}{{atL|fp5zc|21}} citing ''Long''<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Profit|g1dms|1992 CanLII 7513 (ON CA)|16 CR (4th) 332}}{{perONCA-H|Goodman JA}}
</ref>

; Jury Instructions
Where the accused puts his character in issue, the judge must instruct the jury on the permissible use of this evidence as being relevant to:<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Potts|hr64n|2018 ONCA 294 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atsL|hr64n|60| to 61}}<br>
</ref>
# the unlikelihood that the appellant committed the offence charged; and
# the credibility of the appellant as a witness in the proceedings.

{{Reflist|2}}

===Bad Character Rebuttal Evidence===
{{seealso|Proof of Previous Conviction}}
Where character evidence has been adduced by the accused, the Crown may only adduce bad character evidence of (a) general reputation of the accused in the community<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Long|htxr5|1902 CanLII 129 (QC CA)|5 CCC 493 (Que. K.B.)}}{{perQCCA|Wurtele J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Knuff|fp5zc|1980 ABCA 23 (CanLII)|52 CCC (2d) 523}}{{perABCA|Moir JA}}{{atL|fp5zc|21}}<br>
</ref> (b) prior criminal acts, or (c) similar past bad acts.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Gaballa|1pfbm|1992 CanLII 3903 (QC CA)|74 CCC (3d) 84}}{{perQCCA|Fish JA}}
</ref>

Section 666 also permits the Crown to adduce evidence of bad character of a prior criminal record to rebut the good character evidence:
{{quotation3|
; Evidence of character
666. Where, at a trial, the accused adduces evidence of his good character, the prosecutor may, in answer thereto, before a verdict is returned, adduce evidence of the previous conviction of the accused for any offences, including any previous conviction by reason of which a greater punishment may be imposed.
<br>
R.S., c. C-34, s. 593.
|{{CCCSec2|666}}
|{{NoteUp|666}}
|{{Terms-|[[Definitions of Parties, Persons, Places and Organizations#Accused or Offender|accused (s. 2)]]| prosecutor (S. 2)

}}
}}

The Crown may adduce similar past bad acts to rebut good character evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Guay v The Queen|1z71g|1978 CanLII 148 (SCC)|[1979] 1 SCR 18}}{{perSCC|Pigeon J}}<br>
</ref>

An outstanding charge against any witness cannot be used as evidence of character due to the presumption of innocence. He also cannot be cross-examined on outstanding charges.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Tomlinson|g51wx|2014 ONCA 158 (CanLII)|307 CCC (3d) 36}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|g51wx|77}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Bad Character Evidence ("Extrinsic Misconduct")==
Bad character evidence is anything that would show the conduct of the accused, beyond what is in the charges, that would be "seen with disapproval by a reasonable person."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bos|gs015|2016 ONCA 443 (CanLII)|131 OR (3d) 755}}{{perONCA|Tulloch JA}}{{atL|gs015|72}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Johnson|2csn5|2010 ONCA 646 (CanLII)|262 CCC (3d) 404}}{{perONCA|Rouleau JA}}{{AtL|2csn5|90}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bishop|fvt80|2013 NUCA 3 (CanLII)|NJ No 3}} per Côté JA{{AtL|fvt80|63}}
</ref>

The Crown is presumptively prohibited from adducing general evidence of extrinsic misconduct (ie. "bad character") of the accused.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Handy|51r6|2002 SCC 56 (CanLII)|[2002] 2 SCR 908}}{{perSCC-H|Binnie J}}{{atsL|51r6|31| and 36}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Moo|25kzl|2009 ONCA 645 (CanLII)|247 CCC (3d) 34}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|25kzl|96}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cudjoe|2476q|2009 ONCA 543 (CanLII)|68 CR (6th) 86}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|2476q|63}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|G(SG)|1fr1d|1997 CanLII 311 (SCC)|[1997] 2 SCR 716}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{AtL|1fr1d|63}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRx|Camara|jd1hr|2021 ONCA 79 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}
</ref> 

The court is responsible to avoid letting in extrinsic misconduct.<REf>
{{CanLIIRP|Peters|gb6p2|1991 CanLII 7670 (SK QB)|96 Sask R 177}}{{perSKQB|Matheson J}}
</ref>

; Purpose of Prohibition
Discreditable evidence is consider inherently prejudicial for several reasons:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Stubbs|g01lb|2013 ONCA 514 (CanLII)|300 CCC (3d) 181}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|g01lb|55}}<br>
</ref>
# the trier of fact may be influenced to believe the accused has bad character or is a bad person and so is more likely to have committed the offence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Batte|1fb7d|2000 CanLII 5750 (ON CA)|49 OR (3d) 321}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}{{atL|1fb7d|100}}</ref>
# the trier or fact may "have a tendency to punish the accused for the extrinsic misconduct by finding him or her guilty of the offences charged"<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MT|fs52f|2012 ONCA 511 (CanLII)|289 CCC (3d) 115}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|fs52f|81}}</ref>
#the trier of fact may become confused by concentrating on whether the accused actually committed the extrinsic misconduct and their decision "about the extrinsic misconduct may be substituted for the verdict on the offence charged"<ref>
{{ibid1|MT}}{{atL|fs52f|81}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|LED|1ft4x|1989 CanLII 74 (SCC)|[1989] 2 SCR 111}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atps|127-128}}
</ref>
# it has tendency to be distracting and consume a great deal of time.<REf>
{{supra1|Handy}}{{atL|51r6|37}}<br>
{{supra1|Bos}} at para 73<Br>
</ref> 

; Discreditable Evidence
Evidence that a person is poor or a "braggart" is not necessarily discreditable evidence.<ref>
E.g. {{CanLIIRx|Nurse|gf29r|2014 ONSC 2311 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC-H|Coroza J}}{{atsL|gf29r|69| to 71}}</ref>

The accused's association with the Hell's Angels and his demonstrative familiarity with the "intricacies of the drug world and the criminal justice system" amounted to inappropriate bad character evidence against an accused tried for drug trafficking was found inadmissible.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Cook|jbm3n|2020 ONCA 731 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Trotter JA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Exceptions===
There are exception to this rule where, on a balance of probabilities, the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.<ref>
{{supra1|Handy}}{{atL|51r6|41}}<br>
{{supra1|Stubbs}}{{atL|g01lb|56}}<br>
{{supra1|Nurse}}{{atL|gf29r|35}} ("If evidence is found to be discreditable, the evidence may only be admitted where the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.")
</ref>

Consideration of probative value against the prejudicial effect includes considering the "specific link" between the evidence and the issue at trial. <ref>
{{supra1|Nurse}}{{atL|gf29r|35}}
</ref>

Probative value is measured on the basis of: <ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Hassandzara|fts6t|2012 ONSC 6440 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Molloy J}} </ref>
* the strength of the evidence
* the extent to which it supports the inferences sought;
* the extent to which the matters it presents to prove are at issue.

Prejudice is measured on the basis of:<ref>
{{supra1|Nurse}}{{atL|gf29r|38}}</ref>
* how discreditable the evidence is;
* the extent to which is would support improper propensity reasoning;
* the extent to which it would confuse issues;
* the accused ability to respond to the evidence;

Prejudices can sometimes be mitigated by the use of limiting instructions or the trier of fact.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|McFarlane|1q427|2006 CanLII 40794 (ON SC)|[2006] OJ No 4958 (ONSC)}}{{perONSC|Clark J}}
</ref>

; Categorical Exceptions
There are three standard categorical exceptions to the rule against character evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|G(SG)|1fr1d|1997 CanLII 311 (SCC)|[1997] 2 SCR 716}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|1fr1d|63}}<br>
</ref>
#where the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case after balancing the probative value and prejudicial effect<Ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Camara|jd1hr|2021 ONCA 79 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}} at para 50<Br>
Moo at para 97<Br>
Handy at para 41<Br>
G(SG) at para 65<Br>
</ref>
#where the accused puts her character in issue
# where the evidence is adduced incidentally to proper cross-examination of the accused on her credibility<ref>
See: 
{{CanLIIRP|Lucas|hv0gb|1962 CanLII 625 (SCC)|[1963] 1 CCC 1}}{{perSCC|Kerwin CJ}}<br>
{{supra1|SGG}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Chambers|1fsrt|1990 CanLII 47 (SCC)|[1990] 2 SCR 1293}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}</ref>

The rules against leading character can also be ignored in limited circumstances such as where it simply shows context or is part of a narrative.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRP|Lamirande|1dj62|2002 MBCA 41 (CanLII)|164 CCC (3d) 299}}{{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Bernardo| (1995), 42 CR (4th) 85 (Ont Gen Div)}}</ref>

Where bad character comes out in evidence during a jury trial, a judge should provide some limiting instructions on the use of such evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Speid|g99mw|1985 CanLII 3480 (ON CA)|20 CCC (3d) 534}}{{perONCA| Martin JA}}<br>
{{supra1|SGG}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Reierson|2c42z|2010 BCCA 381 (CanLII)|[2010] BCJ No 1619}}{{perBCCA|Newbury JA}} <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Grandinetti|4pvr|2003 ABCA 307 (CanLII)|178 CCC (3d) 449}}{{perABCA|McFadyen JA}} aff’d [http://canlii.ca/t/1jmfq 2005 SCC 5] (CanLII), [2005] 1 SCR 27</ref>

The standard of review of a judge's ruling whether to allow bad character evidence is one of deference unless the analysis was unreasonable, was a legal error, or misapprehended material evidence.<ref>
{{supra1|Stubbs}}{{atL|g01lb|58}}</ref>

Limiting instructions are not required on admitting this type of evidence.<ref>
{{supra1|Stubbs}}{{atL|g01lb|59}}</ref>

Where bad character can be admitted, the prior criminal record as well as the facts underlying the record are admittable.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jackson|g10gb|2013 ONCA 632 (CanLII)|301 CCC (3d) 358}}{{perONCA|Gillese JA}}{{atL|g10gb|47}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Valid Use on Admission===
Where prior bad acts are admitted they may be used in assessing the accused's credibility absent a similar fact application.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|G(SG)|1fr1d|1997 CanLII 311 (SCC)|[1997] 2 SCR 716}}{{perSCC-H|Cory J}}, at pp. 66, 68<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Davison, DeRosie and MacArthur|g15kj|1974 CanLII 787 (ON CA)|20 CCC (2d) 424}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Sheriffe|gmjcq|2015 ONCA 880 (CanLII)}}{{atL|gmjcq|70}} ("Another equally uncontroversial rule emerges in cases where evidence of extrinsic misconduct or bad character is admitted and an accused testifies in his or her own defence. In these cases, the trier of fact may use, and be instructed to use, the bad character or disposition evidence in assessing the credibility of the accused as a witness in the proceedings")<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Chambers|1fsrt|1990 CanLII 47 (SCC)|[1990] 2 SCR 1293}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}, at pp. 336-37<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cameron|6js2|1995 CanLII 1283 (ON CA)|96 CCC (3d) 346}}{{perONCA|Galligan JA}}, at p. 354<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Teresinski|gbhqr|1992 CanLII 12816 (ON CA)|70 CCC (3d) 268}}, at p. 278, leave to appeal refused, (1992) 73 C.C.C. (3d) vi (S.C.C.)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hogan|g95rr|1982 CanLII 3820 (ON CA)|2 CCC (3d) 557}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}, at pp. 564-65, leave to appeal refused, (1983) 51 N.R. 154 (S.C.C.)<br>
</ref>
The attack on credibility can include establishing motive, common purpose, or general participation in a scheme.<REf>
{{supra1|Sheriffe}}{{atL|gmjcq|70}}<Br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===When Character is Put in Issue===
Where the accused places his character at issue, the Crown is entitled to rebut that evidence. Thus, there is considerable importance in determining when character is put into issue. This is most often where the accused is testifying and on either direct or cross he adds information that constitutes character evidence, thus engaging s.666.

An accused who claims not to be the "type of guy" who would commit the offence puts his character at issue.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Morris|1z76m|1978 CanLII 168 (SCC)|[1979] 1 SCR 405}}{{perSCC|Pratte J}}<br>
</ref>

An accused who mentions his "sexual morality" by affirming his commitment to his partner in a murder trial of the partner constitutes putting character at issue.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|McFadden|23p15|1981 CanLII 494 (BC CA)|65 CCC (2d) 9}}{{perBCCA|Hutcheon JA}}</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Relevant and Probative==
{{seealso|Relevance and Materiality}}
===Context and Narrative===
The evidence adduced for context and narrative surrounding the incident at issue may still be admissible even though it includes bad character evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Sand|5bsl|2003 MBQB 76 (CanLII)|1 WWR 651}}{{perMBQB|Menzies J}}{{atL|5bsl|9}}<br>
McWilliams, Canadian Criminal Evidence, Exclusionary Rules and Exceptions, 10-8: ("In some cases, it is unavoidable that the prosecution adduce evidence as part of its case to set the milieu and activity of the accused and the other witnesses to show the context or narrative even though it reveals that they are involved in criminal activity.")<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|LWG|, (1996), 49 C. R. (4th) 178}}{{At-|15}}
{{CanLIIRP|Tanner|1frkb|1995 CanLII 90 (SCC)|[1995] 2 SCR 379}}{{TheCourtSCC}} - adopting the dissent from the ONCA
</ref>
This includes any evidence that is necessary for the Crown's case or simply gives background.<ref>
{{supra1|Sand}}{{atL|5bsl|10}}</ref>

However, in all cases the probative value must still outweigh the prejudicial effect.<ref>
{{supra1|Sand}}{{atL|5bsl|10}}</ref>

; Importance of Context
The trier-of-fact should not have to decide the case within a vacuum and must provide context and perspective.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Ma|htv3s|1978 CanLII 2438 (ON CA)|44 CCC (2d) 511 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|Lacouriere JA}}{{atp|519}}: ("Clearly the evidence in dispute in this case has more than trifling probative force.  It places the charge against the appellant in perspective: without such obviously relevant evidence, the jury would have decided the question of guilt in a vacuum.")
</ref>

Context will often be necessary to explain how the offence came about and the reasonableness of the parties.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cardinal|5ssm|1998 ABCA 50 (CanLII)|168 WAC 30 }}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atL|5ssm|6}} - allowed to explain "how" and "why" the accused was able to commit the offence</ref>

Evidence of misconduct disclosed through a consent wiretap between the accused and an undercover may be permitted to give full context to the trier-of-fact. Proper instructions on its use should be given.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bonisteel|20lp2|2008 BCCA 344 (CanLII)|236 CCC (3d) 170}}{{perBCCA|Levine JA}}
</ref>

; Spree
Evidence of past acts during a crime spree may provide prejudicial effect but is considered necessary to establish the context of the offence.<ref>
{{ibid1|Cardinal}}{{atL|5ssm|6}}
</ref>

; Domestic Relationships
It is at times acceptable for the crown to put in evidence relating to the domestic relationship, including bad character evidence, where it is for the purpose of providing "a proper context in which the jury can assess the specific allegations made against the accused."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Mullins|j399m|2019 ONCA 890 (CanLII)|383 CCC (3d) 16}}{{perONCA|Strathy CJ}}{{atL|j399m|23}}<br>
</ref>
However, where the Crown leads such evidence the accused is entitled to rebut the character evidence by presenting their own version without putting the accused's character in issue.<ref>
{{ibid1|Mullins}}{{atL|j399m|23}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|P(NA)|1bv1s|2002 CanLII 22359 (ON CA)|171 CCC (3d) 70}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atL|1bv1s|34}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Motive===
{{seealso|Intention}}
Proof of motive can constitute a form of bad character evidence and is not presumptively admissible but can be admitted in exceptional circumstances.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Johnson|2csn5|2010 ONCA 646 (CanLII)|262 CCC (3d) 404}}{{perONCA|Rouleau JA}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bos|gs015|2016 ONCA 443 (CanLII)|131 OR (3d) 755}}{{perONCA|Tulloch JA}}{{atL|gs015|74}} <Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Camara|jd1hr|2021 ONCA 79 (CanLII)|400 CCC (3d) 490}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{AtL|jd1hr|51}} ("Evidence of bad character may be exceptionally admitted where relevant to establish motive or animus, state of mind (such as fear on the part of a victim), narrative, or to provide context for other events")
</ref>

The judge must be satisfied that the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.<ref>
{{supra1|Johnson}}<Br>
{{supra1|Bos}}<br>
</ref>

The value of the motive will depend on how speculative it is.<ref>
{{supra1|Johnson}}<Br>
{{supra1|Bos}}{{atL|gs015|74}} ("...discreditable conduct evidence that is adduced to advance a speculative theory of motive ought to be excluded.")<Br>
</ref>
Motive evidence that gives "insight into the background and relationship with the victim" is considered highly probative and is likely admissible.<ref>
{{supra1|Johnson}}{{atL|2csn5|101}}<Br>
{{supra1|Bos}}{{AtL|gs015|74}}<Br>
</ref>

Motive is never necessary to be proven for an offence, however, evidence of motive may assist in proof of an accused’s participation in an offence and of the state of mind with which the offence was committed.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Plomp v The Queen| (1963) 110 CLR 234 (H.C.)}}{{atps|243 and 249-50}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Griffin|23zqj|2009 SCC 28 (CanLII)|[2009] 2 SCR 42}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atsL|23zqj|59| to 60}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Candir|2754x|2009 ONCA 915 (CanLII)|250 CCC (3d) 139}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|2754x|51}}<br>
</ref>

The court has discretion to accept prior assaultive behaviour against a victim proximate to the offence itself as similar fact evidence to establish motive and animus against the victim.<ref>
[[Similar Fact Evidence]]<br>
e.g. {{CanLIIRx|Kayaitok|h0pv5|2017 NUCA 1 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourt}}{{atsL|h0pv5|12| to 16}}<br>
</ref>

Where the defence presents evidence suggesting a third-party committed the offence and has a motive, the crown may call evidence reply evidence on the accused's disposition or propensity.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|M(W)|6j7m|1996 CanLII 1214 (ON CA)|112 CCC (3d) 117}}{{perONCA| Catzman and LaBrosse JJA}}{{atps|123-24}}, aff’d [http://canlii.ca/t/1fqs0 1998 CanLII 831] (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 977.</ref>

Reliance on the motivation of an accused to fabricate can amount to an error of law when it "impairs the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|JAH|fv3b9|2012 NSCA 121 (CanLII)|NSJ No 644}}{{perNSCA|Bryson JA}}{{atL|fv3b9|11}}<br>
</ref>

The accused's level of poverty alone is not sufficient to support an inference of motive to commute an act.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Mensah|1v8kx|2003 CanLII 57419 (ON CA)|9 CR (6th) 339}}{{perONCA|Simmons JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Phillips|219zk|2008 ONCA 726 (CanLII)|242 OAC 63}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}{{atL|219zk|51}}<br>
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

===Domestic Relationships===
Courts will often admit evidence of prior disrepute in order to assist a trier-of-fact in understanding the "nature of the relationship in which the violence is said to have occurred."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|DSF|1f9cp|1999 CanLII 3704 (ON CA)|132 CCC (3d) 97}}{{perONCA|O'Connor JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|PS|1r6tp|2007 ONCA 299 (CanLII)|211 CCC (3d) 45}}{{perONCA|Goudge JA}}<br>  
</ref>

The conduct will have significant probative value where the relationship demonstrates the accused "historically acted with animus towards the Complainant" in sufficiently similar circumstances.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|DP|245pp|2009 CanLII 33056 (ON SC)}}{{perONSC|Boswell J}}{{atL|245pp|28}}<br>
</ref>

In offences of domestic violence, it is important for the alleged victim to provide context in order to avoid having her discredited unfairly. Past acts that reveal ill-will and animus towards the alleged victim is acceptable.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|SB|, [1996] OJ NO 1187 (Gen. Div.)}}{{at-|49}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sand|5bsl|2003 MBQB 76 (CanLII)|[2003] MJ No 150}}{{perMBQB|Menzies J}}<br>
</ref> 
It must be necessary to set out the true nature of the relationship between the parties, particularly with a view to evidence that shows "dominance, control, possessiveness and fear."<ref>
{{supra1|SB}}{{at-|45}}</ref> 

Often this evidence is admitted as "narrative."<ref>
e.g. see {{CanLIIRP|Sand|5bsl|2003 MBQB 76 (CanLII)|1 WWR 651}}{{perMBQB|Menzies J}}{{atL|5bsl|12}}</ref>

However, it can be rejected for its danger of being "propensity" evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Batte|1fb7d|2000 CanLII 5750 (ON CA)|145 CCC (3d) 449}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}</ref>

In a domestic homicide, the crown may introduce evidence of the pas relationship between the victim and accused for the purpose of establishing motive, animus and state of mind. <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Moo|25kzl|2009 ONCA 645 (CanLII)|247 CCC (3d) 34}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}<br>
See also {{supra1|SB}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Peterffy|536q|2000 BCCA 132 (CanLII)|30 CR (5th) 297}}{{perBCCA| Cumming JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Misir|1fn6n|2001 BCCA 202 (CanLII)|153 CCC (3d) 70}}{{perBCCA| Proudfoot JA}}{{atL|1fn6n|18}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Other Examples===

; Gang Association
Evidence of an accused gang affiliation or membership is generally bad character evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cook|jbm3n|2020 ONCA 731 (CanLII)|153 OR (3d) 65}}{{perONCA|Trotter JA}}{{AtL|jbm3n|40}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Phan|j7rcv|2020 ONCA 298 (CanLII)|387 CCC (3d) 383}}{{perONCA|Strathy CJ}}{{AtL|j7rcv|90}}<Br>
</ref>
Any evidence of unrelated criminal activity is considered "particularly dangerous."<Ref>
{{ibid1|Cook}}{{atL|jbm3n|40}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Riley|h5b6q|2017 ONCA 650 (CanLII)|351 CCC (3d) 223}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{AtL|h5b6q|21}}<Br>
</ref>

This type of gang-related evidence creates prejudice by inviting an inference that the accused is likely to have committed the offence.<ref>
{{supra1|Cook}}{{atL|jbm3n|40}}
</ref>
It also may also "insinuate that the accused embraces a positive attitude towards the criminal lifestyle."<Ref>
{{supra1|Cook}}{{atL|jbm3n|40}}
</ref>

Gang affiliation evidence is permissible where it provides necessary "context or narrative, to establish animus or motive, or to establish the accused's state of mind or intention, among other purposes."<ref>
{{supra1|Phan}}{{AtL|j7rcv|91}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Joint Trials==
In a joint trial, an accused is permitted to adduce prejudicial evidence of bad character relating to a co-accused.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Sheriffe|gmjcq|2015 ONCA 880 (CanLII)|333 CCC (3d) 330}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|gmjcq|65}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Suzack|1fb1j|2000 CanLII 5630 (ON CA)|141 CCC (3d) 449}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{AtL|1fb1j|111}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Pollock|1hcgv|2004 CanLII 16082 (ON CA)|187 CCC (3d) 213}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}{{AtL|1hcgv|108}}, leave to appeal refused, [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 405<bR>
{{CanLIIRP|Earhart|2f1sm|2010 ONCA 874 (CanLII)|272 CCC (3d) 475}}{{perONCA|Epstein JA}}{{AtL|2f1sm|73}}, leave to appeal refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 397{{fix}}
</ref>

The Crown can not use that type of bad character evidence to support its case in terms of establishing facts or attacking credibility.<Ref>
{{supra1|Sheriffe}} at para 68<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Diu|1fb7m|2000 CanLII 4535 (ON CA)|144 CCC (3d) 481}}{{atsL|1fb7m|142|, 144-46}}<Br>
{{supra1|Suzack}}{{atsL|1fb1j|97|, 127}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Akins|1d1mk|2002 CanLII 44926 (ON CA)|164 CCC (3d) 289}}{{perONCA|Cronk JA}}{{AtL|1d1mk|20| to 21}}<br>
</ref>

The risk of prejudice is not different simply because it was adduced by a co-accused rather than the Crown.<Ref>
{{supra1|Sheriffe}}{{atL|gmjcq|66}}<Br>
{{supra1|Pollock}} at para 105<br>
</ref>

It is necessary that there be a "sound evidentiary foundation" before a co-accused can introduce bad character evidence.<ref>
{{supra1|Sheriffe}} at para 66<Br>
{{supra1|Pollock}}, at para. 106<br>
{{supra1|Earhart}}, at para. 75<br>
</ref>

The judge must "balance" the fair trial rights of ''both'' accused.<REf>
{{supra1|Sheriffe}} at para 66<Br>
Suzack, at para. 111<br>
{{supra1|Pollock}}, at para. 106 to 107<br>
{{supra1|Diu}}, at para. 137<br>
</ref>

; Jury Trial
In a jury trial, the judge must give clearly defined limiting instructions on what use the evidence may have.<Ref>
{{supra1|Sheriffe}} at para 67<Br>
Pollock, at para. 109<br>
Suzack, at paras. 114, 127<br>
Diu, at para. 137
</ref>

The instructions must include: <Ref>
{{supra1|Sheriffe}} at para 67<Br>
Suzack, at para. 127<br>Pollock, at para. 109<br>
Diu, at para. 139<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Yumnu|2csss|2010 ONCA 637 (CanLII)|260 CCC (3d) 421}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{AtsL|2csss|304| to 5}}, aff’d {{CanLII|fvcdb|2012 SCC 73, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 777}}
</ref>
# identify the evidence to which it applies;
# define the permitted use of the evidence (the positive instruction); and
# describe the prohibited use of the evidence (the negative instruction). 

{{reflist|2}}
===Cut-Throat Defence===
{{seealso|Disreputable and Unsavoury Witnesses}}
In a trial with multiple defendants, an accused person may adduce evidence of the co-accused's bad character for the purpose of establishing a greater likelihood of the co-accused's responsibility for the offence. However, the evidence may only be used to establish the innocence of the accused but not the guilt of the co-accused.

{{reflist|2}}

==Voir également==
* [[Character of Non-Accused Persons]]
* [[Similar Fact Evidence]]
* [[Alternative Suspect Evidence]]