R v Thibeault, 2018 ONCA 876 (The Court):

[11] Second, the appellant argues that the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to adduce evidence of the threatening text messages from the appellant to the deceased and further erred in failing to caution the jury against improper use of the text messages. We reject this submission.

[12] The trial judge’s ruling that the probative value of this evidence exceeded its potential for prejudice is subject to deference on appeal: R. v. Shafia, 2016 ONCA 812, 341 C.C.C. (3d) 364, at para 255, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 17. Given that the messages supported inferences of animus and motive we see no basis on which to interfere with the trial judge’s conclusion that the probative value of this evidence exceeded its potential for prejudice. No request to edit the messages was made to the trial judge. Where evidence of threats against a victim are admissible on the issue of motive, it is not necessary that the trial judge caution the jury against propensity reasoning: R. v. Merz (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.) at paras. 57 – 59, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 240.