Cydney Gaye Israel

The accused was charged with two counts of assault with a knife, two counts of wounding, and breach of probation arising from an altercation in which two individuals were slashed and required medical treatment.

The Crown relied primarily on the testimony of one complainant after the other refused to identify the assailant.

The court assessed credibility under the framework in R. v. W. (D.) and related authorities.

Although the accused’s testimony was found not credible, the complainant admitted to significant prior lies, memory issues, drug use before the incident, and inconsistencies between prior statements and trial testimony.

In light of these reliability concerns and other circumstantial evidence, the court held that the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime following an undercover police drug purchase.

An undercover officer testified that she purchased cocaine from a man matching the accused’s description using pre-recorded marked money, and surveillance officers identified the accused as the person involved in the transaction.

The defence called multiple civilian witnesses who stated the accused did not engage in a drug transaction and remained with them on the way to purchase pizza.

The court found that although the accused matched the description of the person observed by police, the marked $20 bill allegedly recovered from him was neither photographed nor preserved as evidence.

In the absence of this best evidence and given the competing testimony, the court concluded the Crown had not proven identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant, an armoured car service employee, was convicted of theft from an automated banking machine.

The trial judge relied on the finding that the appellant had been issued both combinations to the machine.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, as the Crown had conceded at trial that the exhibit did not prove the appellant received both combinations.

The Court of Appeal agreed, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and restitution orders, and ordered a new trial.