The accused, Andrew Douglas, was charged with robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life following a home invasion.
The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on forensic evidence (DNA, gunshot residue on discarded clothing), cell phone records, and the testimony of the getaway driver, Mohamed Taha.
The defence argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and that Taha's testimony was unreliable.
The court found Taha's evidence credible due to corroboration by other circumstantial evidence.
The judge concluded that the cumulative effect of all evidence established Douglas's guilt as a co-principal or aider for robbery, and as a party under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm, as these were objectively foreseeable consequences of the common unlawful purpose.