WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 539(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 539(3) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection (1), read as follows:

539. Order restricting publication of evidence taken at preliminary inquiry.—

(1) Prior to the commencement of the taking of evidence at a preliminary inquiry, the justice holding the inquiry

(a) may, if application therefor is made by the prosecutor, and

(b) shall, if application therefor is made by any of the accused,

make an order directing that the evidence taken at the inquiry shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way before such time as, in respect of each of the accused,

(c) he or she is discharged, or

(d) if he or she is ordered to stand trial, the trial is ended.

(3) Failure to comply with order.— Every one who fails to comply with an order made pursuant to subsection (1) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2013-08-26

Court File No.: Newmarket 12-10167K

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Blake Langford

Before: Justice Joseph F. Kenkel

Ruling on Committal delivered: 26 August, 2013

Decision

KENKEL J. (Orally):

Introduction

1. Mr. Langford was charged with 57 counts on Information 12-10167K.

2. Counts 1, 2, 9, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 were stayed at the request of the Crown on July 17th. Count 36 was withdrawn at the request of the Crown on July 18th.

3. The central Crown witness was a participant in the burglaries. I acknowledge that his evidence appeared internally contradictory on some points and that a trier of fact would approach such evidence with caution. However, the weight if any to be given his testimony is not to be decided in this proceeding. If his evidence as referred to by the Crown were accepted, and considering the evidence of the other witnesses as well as the inferences that might reasonably flow from the circumstantial evidence I find that there is sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably find guilt on the following counts:

3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 48, 54, 57

4. I find there is not sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on the following counts:

4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27, 31, 33, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50

Count 35

5. The Crown submits that while there is sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on this count, the evidence would be better reflected by committal on the related charge of s. 270.01(1)(b). The defence questions causation in relation to bodily harm. It's understandable that both counsel spent much more time having the officer describe his actions towards the defendant and less time with the reverse, but PC Hodge testified that he saw Mr. Langford swinging at Constable Bilboe when he arrived, and Constable Bilboe testified that Mr. Langford engaged him in hand to hand combat exchanging blows, punching him, putting him in a headlock and elbowing him in the face, not necessarily in that order. The injuries he described regarding swelling in the right ear where he was elbowed, injury to his arm tendon and central core muscle group all were attributed to the struggle with Mr. Langford. I find that the Crown has shown that there is evidence which if it were to be accepted by a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably lead to a finding of guilt under s. 270.01(1)(b) so Mr. Langford will be committed to stand trial on count 35 as amended to the indictable count of s. 270.01(2)(a).

Added Count – Fincham Mall

6. While there was insufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on counts 16-18 in relation to particular Fincham Plaza stores, I agree that the Crown has shown that there is sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on an indictable offence under s. 348(1)(e) arising out of the same transaction pursuant to s. 548(1)(a) in relation to a break and enter to the Fincham Plaza mall.

Added Counts – Conspiracy and Counselling to Commit

7. The Crown has also requested committal on two further charges – Conspiracy to commit break, enter and theft, contrary to s. 465(1)(c) and Counselling to commit Theft in relation to the stolen cars used by the group in the break and enters. There's direct evidence from one of the alleged co-conspirators regarding their planned participation in numerous burglaries. There's direct evidence from various police officers that Mr. Langford participated in the Bayview Food Mart burglary along with two others. The video evidence shows the men acting in concert during the burglary. Considering the direct evidence on this count, the circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences that flow from that evidence, I find that a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably find that there was a conspiracy as alleged and that this accused was a participant in that conspiracy. The accused will be committed to stand trial on a further indictable count contrary to s. 465(1)(c) arising out of the same transaction.

8. Finally, while his evidence may be internally contradictory on this point as between examination in chief and cross examination, there is direct evidence which if it were to be accepted by a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably lead to a finding of guilt on a charge of counselling to commit an offence contrary to s. 22 in relation to the stolen cars used by the group in the burglaries. The accused will be committed to stand trial on that further count.

Delivered: 26 August, 2013

Justice Joseph F. Kenkel