2 total
Accused acquitted of drug and weapons charges as circumstantial evidence did not prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
The three accused were charged with multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences after police executed a search warrant at an apartment and found large quantities of drugs and two handguns.
The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the accused coming and going from the building, and the presence of two of the accused in the apartment during the raid.
The court found that while the evidence established the apartment was a stash house, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband, as there was a reasonable alternative inference that the drugs and guns belonged exclusively to the tenant of the apartment.
Surveillance video ruled admissible despite time stamp discrepancies; Crown only required to prove substantial accuracy.
During an ongoing trial for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of surveillance video clips from an apartment building.
The defence challenged the authenticity of the video due to time stamp discrepancies and jumps in the recording.
The court applied section 31.1 of the Canada Evidence Act and the test from R. v. Bulldog, finding that the Crown only needed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the video was a substantially accurate and fair representation of what it purported to show.
The court held that the time jumps were attributable to the camera being motion-activated and the time stamp was inaccurate to a provable degree, ruling the video admissible.
