Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The statement of facts is derived from the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Appellant was charged with several counts respecting robberies that occurred in Edmonton. He was also charged with three counts relating to a robbery that occurred in Red Deer. The sole issue at the trial was that of identity. The only evidence identifying the Appellant as a participant in the robberies emanated from an accomplice with a long, significant criminal record who testified that the Appellant was one of the participants in each of the robberies.

The trial judge determined that this witness was both an accomplice and a disreputable witness and was the type of witness who called for a clear warning to the trier of fact: R. v. Vetrovec, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811. Because the trial was by judge alone the trial judge instructed himself that the witness was an accomplice with a long criminal record. As a result his evidence had to be viewed with a tremendous amount of scepticism and corroboration before it could be accepted. The trial judge determined with respect to the Edmonton robberies, the only confirmation that existed was some knowledge of the witness concerning what transpired during the robberies. The trial judge determined that the police officers investigating these robberies had disclosed information to the witness about what had occurred. The trial judge determined that the confirmatory evidence was contaminated such that his faith in the witness could not be restored. The trial judge did not have the same problem respecting the Red Deer robbery. He also found confirmation because several collector's hockey cards stolen in Red Deer were in the possession of the witness. Finally, he found that a phone call made by the witness while in Red Deer, together with the witness relating where items of clothing could be found, including shoes that were an exact match for a shoe mark left at the scene of the robbery, confirmed the witness's testimony.

On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Berger J.A. dissenting would have allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction because no relevant, material or independent confirming evidence was provided capable of rationally restoring the trier's of fact faith in the impugned witness's account of any issue in dispute.