B. Willson (Amicus Curiae)

The accused was charged with multiple counts arising from three break and enters at Subway restaurant locations over several days.

Surveillance footage, physical evidence, and DNA recovered from a balaclava linked the accused to the offences, while the accused testified denying involvement and suggesting innocent explanations for the evidence.

The court applied the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.) and rejected the accused’s account.

After finding the accused responsible for one break and enter, the court admitted similar fact evidence due to striking similarities in timing, method, clothing, and tools used across the incidents.

The similarities and physical evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the same perpetrator committed all three break and enters.

The accused was charged with break and enter and theft from a retail store.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence consisting of blood found on the exterior door beneath a broken window used to gain entry.

DNA testing matched the blood to the accused with an extremely high statistical probability, and the accused’s twin brother was excluded as a potential source based on alibi evidence and physical differences from the individual depicted in security video.

Applying the modern approach to circumstantial evidence following R. v. Cooper, the court found that the blood evidence was logically connected to the break‑in and that no reasonable alternative inference was supported by the evidence.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.