The accused were charged with possession of property obtained by crime exceeding $5,000 and related curfew breaches following a break and enter at a lumber store.
The Crown’s case relied primarily on the testimony of an accomplice who admitted he initially lied to police and later implicated the accused after negotiating a plea deal in exchange for a discharge.
Applying the principles underlying a Vetrovec warning, the court treated the accomplice as an unsavoury and unreliable witness whose evidence required careful scrutiny.
The alleged confirmatory evidence, including a stolen cheque found in a van and evidence of a phone call requesting use of the van, was found insufficient to independently confirm the witness’s account of the accused’s involvement.
The Crown therefore failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
