Justice A.D. Dellandrea

Four young persons were charged with multiple counts of armed robbery at Scotiabanks in Mississauga in May and June 2018, as well as related offences.

Three armed robberies occurred within two weeks in May 2018, all at Scotiabanks in Mississauga, committed by perpetrators wearing hoods and masks.

A fourth attempted robbery occurred on June 15, 2018, which was interrupted by police surveillance.

The Crown relied on video surveillance, witness identification, similar fact evidence, and circumstantial evidence to establish identity.

The trial involved complex evidentiary issues including the admissibility of recognition evidence under Leaney principles, similar fact evidence for identity purposes in a rotating group context, and Nikolovski video identification analysis.

The court dismissed charges related to the May 15 robbery due to insufficient evidence.

Convictions were entered on various counts with acquittals on others based on the court's careful analysis of identification evidence and the application of legal principles governing circumstantial evidence.

The Crown sought a detention order for an 18-year-old accused charged with eight firearms offences and one drug possession offence.

The accused was found in possession of a loaded 40-calibre semi-automatic handgun with 11 rounds of ammunition in his waistband during a RIDE check.

The defence proposed a strict house arrest plan with parental supervision and a $5,000 monetary pledge.

The court found that while the accused's youth and lack of criminal record were mitigating factors, the serious nature of the allegations, the strength of the Crown's case, and the escalating risk posed by the loaded firearm in a vehicle where drugs were being consumed justified detention under the tertiary ground of section 515(10)(c) to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, failing to stop for police, driving while disqualified, and failing to comply with a probation order arising from an incident on February 3, 2016.

The central issue was whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of a vehicle involved in a dangerous pursuit in Brampton.

The court found the eyewitness identification evidence of a police officer, based on a single photograph viewed two days after a ten-second observation, was unreliable and insufficient to support a conviction.

The court also found the circumstantial evidence, while suspicious, did not compel the only reasonable inference of guilt.

Additionally, the Crown failed to prove the accused's knowledge of the terms of the probation order and driving prohibition.

All charges were dismissed.