The accused was charged with breaching a probation order and recognizance by associating with a named person on two separate occasions.
On the first incident (March 30, 2012), the accused was observed in conversation with the prohibited person at a retail store.
On the second incident (April 2, 2012), the prohibited person was present in the accused's apartment.
The Crown proceeded summarily and the defence called no evidence.
The court found that the accused intended to communicate with the prohibited person on the first occasion, establishing the necessary mens rea for breach of probation.
On the second occasion, the court found that the identity of the person in the apartment was established beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, including witness identification, a health card, and corroborating facts.
The accused was found guilty on all counts.
