23 total
The court dismissed the applicant's bail review application due to his serious misconduct while in pre-trial custody.
The applicant sought a bail review following his detention on charges of robbery and being masked with intent arising from November 2010 robberies at an Oakville Mac's Milk Store and a Mississauga Rabba Fine Foods Store.
At the preliminary hearing, the applicant was ordered to stand trial on counts relating to the Mac's Milk robbery but was discharged on counts relating to the Rabba store robbery.
The applicant brought a bail review application arguing material change in circumstances, including the discharge on some counts, time served in pre-trial custody, and proposed sureties.
The Crown opposed the application, emphasizing the applicant's serious misconduct while in custody, including possession of cocaine and a homemade weapon concealed in his rectum, and subsequent drug-related incidents.
The court dismissed the bail review application, finding the applicant had not met the onus on a balance of probabilities to demonstrate cause for vacating the detention order.
Accused found guilty of break and enter and possession of stolen property based on eye-witness identification.
The accused was charged with break and enter, possession of stolen property, and breach of recognizance.
The Crown's case relied on eye-witness identification from a photo line-up and the doctrine of recent possession.
Two independent witnesses identified the accused: the homeowner who saw him leaving her property, and a construction worker who saw him dumping the stolen safe in a ravine.
The court found the photo line-ups were fair and the identifications reliable.
The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.
The accused was convicted of break and enter and related offences based on reliable eyewitness identification and the doctrine of recent possession.
The accused was charged with break and enter of a residential dwelling, theft, possession of stolen property (a vehicle and a safe), and breach of recognizance.
The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification evidence from two independent witnesses who identified the accused in photo line-ups, combined with the doctrine of recent possession.
The court found the identification evidence reliable and the photo line-up procedures fair, complying with Sophonow Inquiry recommendations.
The accused was convicted on counts 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Count 5 was dismissed at the Crown's request.