The accused was charged with break and enter, robbery, uttering threats, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following a home invasion.
The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including a cellphone belonging to the accused found at the scene, and eyewitness identification by the complainant.
The court rejected the eyewitness identification as unreliable but found the accused's explanation for his cellphone being at the scene to be implausible.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's testimony and found that the circumstantial evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the break and enter, robbery, and weapons charges.
The accused was acquitted of uttering threats due to insufficient evidence regarding which perpetrator made the threat.