Case information

Criminal law — Evidence — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the convictions — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that evidence of a properly qualified recognition witness, founded on a good quality video clearly depicting the suspect’s appearance, and corroborated by eyewitness testimony was incapable of proving identity — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the identification evidence of two eyewitnesses who observed the suspect at length, in close proximity and in excellent conditions at the time of the offence, who identified the respondent as the suspect before they testified, who were able to refresh their memory of the suspect’s appearance by viewing a good quality video of the suspect's appearance when they testified, and whose evidence was corroborated by recognition evidence, was incapable of proving identity — Whether the Court of Appeal’s legal errors were predicated on the Court’s failure to apply the law as it relates to the assessment of the reliability of identification evidence, a failure to respect the standard of review to be applied in an unreasonable verdict appeal, a misapprehension of the reasons for verdict at trial and a misapprehension of the evidence — Whether the decision undermines several important criminal law policy objectives relating to the division of responsibilities between triers of fact, triers of law and appellate courts — Whether the decision undermines the ability of lawyers and trial judges to assess the probative value of identification evidence and assess the strength of a prosecution case before making critical decisions in the performance of their duties?

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.

There was a robbery at a jewelry store. The only issue at trial was the identity of the robber. There were two eyewitnesses and video surveillance. A police officer provided recognition evidence. The respondent was convicted of robbery and a violation of his undertaking to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The respondent was found to be a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal concluded the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. It held that this unreasonable verdict could only be cured by an acquittal from the bench. The Court of Appeal stated that the sentence appeal was rendered moot.