David A. Wallbridge

The appellants challenged an order dismissing their application to quash committals to stand trial arising from a bank robbery prosecution based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal applied the strict test governing review of a committal and held there was no scintilla of evidence on the element of identity.

The purported clothing nexus between one appellant and one robber failed because the descriptions contained a material dissimilarity, leaving only resemblance, suspicion, and speculation.

The appeal was allowed and the orders to stand trial were quashed on all charges.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal decision that set aside his acquittal for impaired care and control and entered a conviction on the first charge while staying the over-80 charge.

The Court of Appeal held there was ample evidence that the appellant had care and control of the vehicle, even though the keys were on the floor and he had no immediate intention to drive.

Sitting in the driver's seat with the keys readily accessible created a real risk that he could change his mind or misjudge his impairment and operate the vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed.