Carolyn Fineberg

The accused was charged with two counts of robbery involving two separate taxi drivers on consecutive nights.

In both incidents, two men entered the taxi, directed the driver to a location, and then robbed the driver using a weapon while demanding cash, cell phones, and keys.

The Crown relied on the consistent testimony of the taxi drivers, onboard CCTV camera images, and a palm print found on one of the vehicles.

The court found the evidence of identity and participation compelling, rejecting the defence's arguments regarding the reliability of the CCTV images and the victims' observations.

The accused was found guilty as a party to both robberies.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude a hunting rifle seized during execution of a telewarrant for proceeds of crime.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained misleading statements regarding the existence of strict surveillance, which was critical to establishing reasonable grounds for the warrant.

After excising the misleading information, the remaining record could not support issuance of the warrant.

The police also searched a locked music shed that was not part of the “dwelling house” described in the warrant and entered it by battering ram despite a key being available.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework from Grant, the court held that the combined Charter breaches warranted exclusion of the firearm evidence.