R. v. Chizanga
| Date | 2025-03-24 |
| Neutral citation | 2025 SCC 9 |
| Case number | 41405, 41370 |
| Judges | Majority: Martin, Jamal, O’Bonsawin JJ.; Dissent: Rowe, Moreau JJ. |
| Decision | Majority – Appeals dismissed; convictions for second degree murder affirmed |
| On appeal from | Court of Appeal for Ontario |
Summary
The Supreme Court confirms murder convictions related to a shooting in a Mississauga restaurant.
A person was shot multiple times in the washroom area of a Mississauga restaurant. Shamar Meredith and Thulani Chizanga were charged with first degree murder.
Before the trial, the Crown brought a motion to have a video admitted as prior discreditable conduct evidence. The video footage appears to show Mr. Meredith, Mr. Chizanga and another person at a motel on the evening before the shooting. It shows Mr. Chizanga knocking on a motel room door while Mr. Meredith is holding an assault-style firearm. It is presumed that this evidence is not admissible in a criminal trial.
The trial judge decided that the video was admissible. After the written ruling was released and before the video was played for the jury, Mr. Meredith and Mr. Chizanga brought a motion to have the trial judge reconsider his decision on the prior discreditable conduct motion, which was dismissed. Both men were eventually found guilty of second degree murder by a jury. Mr. Meredith was sentenced to imprisonment for life and 16 years without eligibility for parole. Mr. Chizanga was sentenced to imprisonment for life and 12 years without eligibility for parole.
Mr. Meredith and Mr. Chizanga appealed their convictions raising, among other grounds of appeal, that the trial judge erred in admitting the video as evidence of prior discreditable conduct. They also said that the trial judge had failed to properly instruct the jury on the permissible use of such evidence.
A majority of the judges of the Court of Appeal for Ontario panel dismissed the appeals. They found that the trial judge applied the correct legal test in deciding to admit the video, and that his assessment of the probative value and prejudicial effect of the video was reasonable. Further, they found that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the permitted and prohibited uses of the video.
A dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal for Ontario would have allowed the appeal and directed a new trial on the charges of second degree murder.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.
As such, the convictions for second degree murder are affirmed.
- https://www.scc-csc.ca/pdf/cb/2025/41405-41370-eng.pdf
- https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20911/index.do
- https://www.courthouselibrary.ca/how-we-can-help/new-notable-legal-news/supreme-court-canada-decision-r-v-chizanga
- https://www.yorku.ca/osgoode/thecourt/2025/03/14/appeal-watch-revisiting-the-admissibility-of-similar-fact-evidence-in-r-v-chizanga/
- https://www.slaw.ca/2025/06/01/summaries-sunday-supreme-advocacy-126/
- https://www.slaw.ca/2025/04/13/summaries-sunday-supreme-one-liners-3/
- https://open.spotify.com/episode/3hBAdGUsuo9xPemvlk3Nf2
- https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2025CanLIIDocs1301