E.T., a young person, faced charges of robbery, possession of a weapon, disguise with intent, and possession of a stolen vehicle.
The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on a general resemblance of E.T. to one of the robbers, E.T.'s possession of a similar jacket seven days after the robbery, and his presence in the victim's stolen vehicle.
The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence from R. v. Villaroman, emphasizing that an inference of guilt must be the only reasonable inference, not merely a probable one.
The court found that while E.T.'s guilt was more likely than not, the identification evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the robbery-related charges.
Similarly, for the possession of stolen vehicle charge, there was no evidence that E.T. had control over the vehicle or knowledge that it was stolen.
All charges were dismissed.