The appellant was convicted of several offences arising from three separate gang home invasions.
The trial judge directed the jury that they could consider the evidence from one incident as similar fact evidence to identify the appellant in the other incidents.
The Supreme Court of Canada, applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Perrier, held that the trial judge erred.
The similarities between the incidents demonstrated that the same group likely committed the offences, but did not point to any individual trademark or characteristic identifying the appellant.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
