ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2024 11 08 COURT FILE No.: Central West Region - Brampton – 23-31100275 & 23-31100418

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

Jermaine Haughton

Before Justice Andrew F. Falls

Heard on July 15-18 and August 19, 2024 Reasons for Judgment released on November 8, 2024

Counsel: M. Lisus................................................................................................. counsel for the Crown J. Roberts............................................... counsel for the defendant, Jermaine Haughton

Table of Contents

Introduction .. 1 Applicable Legal Principles . 2 The Identification Evidence . 4 The Video Surveillance . 4 Timing and the Taxi Evidence . 6 Summary and Conclusions from the Identification Evidence . 7 Mr. Haughton was not a Credible Witness . 9 Conclusion . 12

Falls, J.:

Introduction

[1] Joseph Prempeh was in his residence at 110 Acorn Place in Mississauga. He was in his living room sitting on his couch and watching television. He had just taken his garbage out and left his apartment door slightly open. To his surprise a masked assailant entered Mr. Prempeh’s apartment proceeded to him and swung a knife vertically up and down towards his head. Mr. Prempeh tried to defend himself by raising his arms. The assailant repeated something indiscernible as he swung the knife. Initially stunned, Mr. Prempeh soon called out for his friend in the bedroom. The friend, Francis Mensah, quickly attended the living room. The assailant ran from the apartment. He was chased by Mr. Prempeh and Mr. Mensah to a nearby stairwell. Mr. Prempeh did not know this masked assailant.

[2] Mr. Prempeh sustained a cut to the left side of his head and cuts on his left forearm. He was taken for hospital treatment.

[3] This case is about who invaded Joseph Prempeh’s apartment.

[4] The Crown advanced a circumstantial case using a compendium of video surveillance to argue that Jermaine Haughton was the person who broke into Mr. Prempeh’s apartment.

[5] Mr. Haughton stands charged with three offences in relation to this incident – Break, Enter and commit an indictable offence, Assault with a weapon and Failing to Comply with a Release Order. Additionally, Mr. Haughton is charged with theft under for stealing a hoodie sweater from Walmart shortly before the break and enter. This hoodie was worn by the assailant when assaulting Mr. Prempeh.

[6] Aside from an assessment of Mr. Haughton’s testimony, there is no issue with the credibility of the other witnesses who testified in this trial, nor the reliability of their evidence.

[7] There is no issue that Mr. Haughton is guilty of both the theft under offence and not complying with his release order. He admitted to both offences during his testimony. His lawyer did not argue against this conclusion.

[8] Additionally, there is no issue with respect to the elements of the offences of Break and Enter and Assault with a Weapon. The lawyers agree the essential elements of these offences have been proven by the Crown.

[9] The sole issue in this trial is the identity of the person who entered Mr. Prempeh’s residence on December 11, 2022.

[10] For the following reasons, I find that the Crown has proven that Jermaine Haughton was the person who entered Mr. Prempeh’s apartment and assaulted him.

Applicable Legal Principles

[11] The case against Mr. Haughton relies partly on my assessment of his credibility and the reliability of his evidence.

[12] Accordingly, the principles in R. v. W (D) [^1] are applicable.

[13] If I believe Mr. Haughton’s evidence, I must find him not guilty.

[14] Even if his evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt regarding any essential element of the alleged offence, I must find him not guilty.

[15] Finally, even if his evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt about his guilt, if after considering all the evidence that I do accept, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, I must acquit.

[16] I must keep in mind that Mr. Haughton, like every other person charged with a crime, is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Crown has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He does not have to present evidence or prove anything. It is not enough for me to believe that he is probably or likely guilty. Proof of probable or likely guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely it is nearly impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty and the Crown is not required to do so. Absolute certainty is a standard of proof that does not exist in law. However, I must remember that "the reasonable doubt standard ... falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities". [^2]

[17] Reasonable doubt is based on "reason and common sense," is not "imaginary or frivolous," does not "involve proof to an absolute certainty," and must be "logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence." [^3] .

[18] The reasonable doubt standard applies to the final determination of guilt or innocence - it is not applied piecemeal to individual pieces of evidence or categories of evidence [^4] .

[19] I note the differences between credibility and reliability. Credibility relates to a witness's sincerity, whether they are speaking the truth as they believe it to be. Reliability relates to the accuracy of their testimony. In determining this, I must consider their ability to accurately observe, recall and recount the events in issue. A credible witness may give unreliable evidence [^5] . Accordingly, there is a distinction between a finding of credibility and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. [^6]

[20] At this point I will say that while my decision with respect to the credibility of the witnesses is based, in part, on their demeanour while testifying, I am well aware that a finding of credibility should never be based on demeanour alone, especially where there are significant inconsistencies and conflicting evidence on the record. [^7] The credibility and reliability of a witness must be "tested in the light of all the other evidence presented" [^8] .

[21] I also stress that while I am satisfied that I may rely on the demeanour of the witnesses as a factor in assessing their credibility, I consider it to be of very little, if any, assistance in assessing the reliability of their evidence.

[22] I have instructed myself to avoid an “either/or” approach in choosing between competing versions and have adhered to the approach mandated by W(D) to consider all of the evidence and to ensure that the presumption of innocence is not displaced in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[23] Finally, in assessing a witness’s evidence, I am entitled to believe all, none, or some of their testimony. [^9]

The Identification Evidence

[24] I now turn to my assessment of the identification evidence.

[25] Before doing so, it is necessary to review further areas of law that are relevant to an assessment of circumstantial evidence.

[26] A finding of guilt can be founded on inference or common sense. I remind myself that when the Crown relies on circumstantial evidence to prove guilt, I must consider other reasonable possibilities inconsistent with guilt. [^10] This is especially true when a finding of guilt rests largely on the use of circumstantial evidence and common-sense inferences.

[27] If I were to make a finding of guilt based on a common-sense inference, it must be grounded in the facts as I accept them. In other words, I should stray away from inferences that have no support in the evidence.

[28] In assessing circumstantial evidence, I note that the reasonable doubt standard applies to the evidence as a whole, not to individual pieces of evidence. [^11] The totality of circumstantial evidence must be considered. When I assess the likelihood of independent events, I must consider the cumulative effect of the evidence.

[29] Finally, inferences consistent with innocence may arise from a lack of evidence. [^12]

The Video Surveillance

[30] I make the following factual findings in relation to the video surveillance evidence.

[31] The Crown tendered video surveillance from three geographical locations in the City of Mississauga – Square One shopping mall, 110 Acorn Place, and 360 Centre Drive (“Confederation Parkway”) [^13] . Each of the surveillance videos show the movement of two predominant males. Both males together at Square One. Each depicted separately in the videos at Acorn Place and Confederation Parkway.

[32] It was admitted that Mr. Haughton is the male with the grey jacket and yellow sweater present in both the Square One videos and at Confederation Parkway. In those video, Mr. Haughton is observed in several locations in the mall proper and stealing a hoodie from a Walmart store. Mr. Haughton is wearing a grey winter parka, plain blue jeans, a yellow sweater and yellow/beige boots with a dark-coloured toecap.

[33] The other male is wearing a black winter parka, white shirt, grey running shoe style footwear, and grey pants with a white stripe down the side of each leg. On the front of his left leg, at the shin, there is a blue and white circular badge or logo. The right leg does not have a similar badge.

[34] Both males are wearing a camouflage-coloured neck scarf covering the bottom half of their faces. Mr. Haughton has the hood of his jacket up for much of the video. The other male is wearing a camouflage-coloured balaclava covering his lower face and head.

[35] Comparing the two males at Square One, Mr. Haughton has a stockier build and his ability to walk appeared laboured, dragging his feet as he walked. The other male is slimmer and walked at a smooth, fast pace. Compared to Mr. Haughton, he seemingly floated across the floor.

[36] I have included three images below from Square One to illustrate how each male appeared in the surveillance videos. These images were tendered as an exhibit, part of a PowerPoint including the surveillance videos. Mr. Haughton is admitted as the male in the grey parka. Aside from the defence admission, it is clear to me from a review of the video surveillance that Mr. Haughton is the man in the grey parka.

[37] While at Square One, Mr. Haughton can be observed attending Walmart and stealing a black, front zip hoodie with the word Canada embroidered across the front chest. Mr. Haughton removed his parka, put the hoodie on over his yellow sweater, put his parka back on, and left the store.

[38] Jermaine Haughton is further admitted being the male that does not enter a residential building on Confederation Parkway (360 Centre Drive). Still images from video surveillance show Mr. Haughton wearing the same clothing as depicted in the Square One video. Mr. Haughton walked down an alley beside the building. He was wearing the black Walmart hoodie under his parka. Mr. Haughton removed the hoodie and discarded it over a fence in the alley.

[39] Mr. Haughton testified that he was with the other male from Square One. They took a taxi from Square One to Acorn Place. The same taxi then transported both males to Confederation Parkway. They were both dropped off at this location. The other male entered the building. Mr. Haughton entered the alley to discard the hoodie.

[40] However, it is disputed by the defence that Mr. Haughton is the male captured by the Acorn Place videos.

[41] Four areas of video surveillance from 110 Acorn Place were tendered as exhibits:

(1) A person walking from and jogging back to a parked taxicab. (2) A person entering and exiting the residential building. (3) A person walking to and from through the lobby; and (4) A person walking to and from Mr. Prempeh’s apartment on the 11 th floor.

[42] From the videos, I observed the male entering and leaving Acorn Place, and walking through the lobby was wearing a black front zip hoodie with Canada embroidered on the chest, plain blue jeans, and yellow/beige boots with a dark coloured toecap. There are no designs or marks on the blue jeans, no stripe down the side of the leg. The male has the sweater’s hood up. On his face, all but the area around his eyes was covered by a mask.

[43] The male’s walk was laboured, dragging his feet as he walked. Almost as if his boots were heavy or too big for his feet. The male had a stocky build. Exiting the building through the lobby and out front, the male moved at a quicker pace though still heavy-footed.

Timing and the Taxi Evidence

[44] The video surveillance shows the entire transaction from Square One to the taxi drop off at Confederation Parkway was approximately 40 minutes. Mr. Haughton entered Walmart at 3:43pm. From the mall surveillance videos, both males entered the mall at the Holt Renfrew entrance shortly prior, then walking through the mall to Walmart. Mr. Haughton exited Walmart at 3:50pm.

[45] Mohammad Arif testified as a Crown witness. On December 11, 2022, he was working as a taxicab driver. He testified that he picked up two black males at the lower Walmart entrance at Square One. The transaction details from the call note that the pickup time was 3:53:58pm. Mr. Arif travelled to 110 Acorn Place. He waited in the parking lot outside the building while one male left the taxi to enter the building. The other male remained in the taxi. Mr. Arif testified that the male was out of his taxi for approximately five minutes. Upon the male returning to his taxi, Mr. Arif took the males to the area of Confederation Parkway and City Centre Drive. The drop off time for the fare was at 4:19:33pm. He did not make any other stops or take on other passengers. Mr. Arif did not notice any movement in his taxi between the males consistent with the exchange of clothing.

[46] Mr. Arif could not identify either male. Mr. Haughton testified that he was one of those two males.

[47] In effect, Mr. Arif picked up Mr. Haughton and the other male, travelled to Acorn Place, and back to the Square One area.

[48] Video surveillance from Confederation Parkway (360 City Centre Drive) shows the other male entering the building at 4:19pm.

[49] Thus, 36 minutes transpired from the time Mr. Haughton entered Walmart to when he was dropped off at Confederation Parkway.

Summary and Conclusions from the Identification Evidence

[50] The Crown asserts that the identity of the person in the Acorn Place videos is clearly made out when the circumstantial evidence is viewed cumulatively. Mr. Haughton is identified at both Square One before the offence and Confederation Parkway after the offence. A review of the surveillance videos from these locations, then compared to the person depicted in the Acorn Place videos, clearly shows the male wearing the same clothing. The male in the Acorn Place videos is meaningfully larger than the alternate suspect, Oshane. Added to this is the evidence of the taxicab driver – the timing of his fare and no observation of anyone changing clothes. The cumulative effect of this evidence clearly establishes Jermaine Haughton as the person who broke into Joseph Prempeh’s residence and assaulted him.

[51] Defence Counsel argues that this evidence is insufficient for a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The person’s face in the Acorn Place video cannot be seen. It is not clear the colour of the pants worn by that person. Further, I should accept her client’s evidence that the person in the video is of a slighter stature than Mr. Haughton.

[52] Respectfully, I disagree with the defence argument. The Acorn Place video clearly shows a male of a stockier build walking to, from and inside the building. Walking from the taxicab, walking in the lobby and on the 11 th floor, his gait appears laboured and more similar to Mr. Haughton’s in the Square One videos.

[53] I appreciate that my observations of this person’s gait or manner of walking is insufficient evidence alone to prove the identity of this person. Aside from my own observations from the videos, there was no evidence in this trial that would aid me in determining the value of this evidence. For example, expert forensic gait identification evidence was not called. I note, even if expert evidence were called on this point, it would still be left to a trier of fact to draw their own conclusions regarding identity based on factual observations [^14] .

[54] I include it in my analysis as a point of comparison between Mr. Haughton and the other male. A further piece of circumstantial evidence that narrows the gap between the person who assaulted Mr. Prempeh and Mr. Haughton, or the other male. From Mr. Haughton’s evidence, if the male entering Acorn Place was not him, it logically follows that it was the other male. Indeed, Mr. Haughton testified specifically that it was the other male, thus making observations or distinctions between the two males relevant.

[55] My assessment about the identity of the person who assaulted Mr. Prempeh is a determination between two people - Mr. Haughton and the other male. I am not identifying that person from an infinite number of people randomly in the community.

[56] It is especially clear in the lobby videos that the male was wearing a black front zip hoodie with Canada embroidered on the chest, plain blue jeans, and yellow/beige boots with a dark coloured toecap. There were no designs or marks on the blue jeans, no stripe down the side of the leg. The colour and design of the jeans was entirely consistent with what Mr. Haughton was wearing at Square One. It was entirely inconsistent with the grey pants with a white stripe that the other male was wearing both at Square One and Confederation Parkway.

[57] I note that neither party called Oshane as a witness in this trial. He was an ascertainable witness familiar to the police and Mr. Haughton. He was Mr. Haughton’s childhood friend. Constable Crews encountered Oshane during his investigation. Oshane said hello to the police. Oshane was a suspect as a party in this offence, though the police never formed sufficient grounds to arrest him.

[58] I have no doubt that Mr. Haughton as depicted in the Square One videos and the male in the Acorn Place videos is one and the same. I make this conclusion based on a cumulative consideration of the circumstantial evidence including:

(a) The identification is ultimately an identification between two parties - Mr. Haughton and Oshane. (b) While at Square One Mr. Haughton stole the Canada hoodie used in the commission of the offence. Mr. Haughton was wearing the hoodie before and after the offence. (c) The timing of the occurrence. This entire transaction from Square One to Acorn Place to Square One took place within 36 minutes. Mr. Haughton left Square One at 3:53:58pm. He entered Acorn Place approximately eleven minutes later at 4:04:43pm. (d) The male in the Acorn Place videos is wearing the black Canada hoodie, plain blue jeans, and boots strikingly similar to the clothing worn by Mr. Haughton before and after the offence. Mr. Haughton testified it was the same boots, his boots. (e) The male in the Acorn Place videos has similar physical attributes and body movements to Mr. Haughton. Oshane, as depicted in the videos at Square One and Confederation Parkway does not share these attributes. (f) Finally, Mr. Haughton discarded the sweater used in the commission of the crime approximately ten minutes afterwards. This is post-offence conduct evidence to be used with the rest of the circumstantial evidence in the determination of guilt [^15] . In my view, an inference can be drawn that Mr. Haughton discarded the sweater to distance himself from any connection to the offence. As I will explain in the next section of my judgment, I reject Mr. Haughton’s inconsistent assertions to the contrary about why he discarded the sweater.

[59] Had this been the only evidence presented in this trial, I would be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the identification of Jermaine Haughton as the person who invaded Joseph Prempeh’s apartment.

Mr. Haughton was not a Credible Witness

[60] However, Mr. Haughton testified in his own defence. Through his testimony, Mr. Haughton advanced a narrative that corroborated much of the Crown’s evidence.

[61] Mr. Haughton met a good friend, Oshane, for lunch on December 11, 2022. Mr. Haughton has known Oshane since they were little kids. Oshane’s aunt and Mr. Haughton’s mother were friends. Mr. Haughton called Oshane’s aunt “mamma”. Oshane was going to give him money because Mr. Haughton had been in jail. Oshane had told him that he had an argument with his girlfriend at Acorn Place.

[62] Mr. Haughton admitted to being the person in the Square One and Walmart videos. He stole the Canada hoodie from Walmart. He testified that he tried the sweater on and left the store. Mr. Haughton agreed that he was wearing a grey winter parka, blue jeans, a yellow sweater, and yellow boots with a dark-coloured toecap before and after the offence.

[63] Mr. Haughton agreed he put the Canada hoodie on in Walmart. He also agreed that he was wearing the hoodie under his parka after he was dropped off at Confederation Parkway.

[64] Mr. Haughton admitted to taking a taxi from Square One to Acorn Place to Confederation Parkway. This was the same taxi driven by Mohammad Arif.

[65] Mr. Haughton admitted to discarding the hoodie in the alley by Confederation Parkway.

[66] However, Mr. Haughton ultimately denied being the person who entered Acorn Place and assaulted Mr. Prempeh. Mr. Haughton advised it was the other male he was with at Square One, his friend Oshane, that committed the offence. Mr. Haughton waited in the taxi.

[67] Mr. Haughton attached a more innocent explanation to the areas of the evidence that might implicate him in the offence. He took the sweater at the behest of his friend, Oshane. He gave the Canada hoodie and his boots to Oshane to wear into Acorn Place. He discarded the Canada hoodie because Oshane told him to, or because he already had too much clothing.

[68] The case against Mr. Haughton depends in part on my assessment of him as a witness pursuant to W (D) and having regard to the criminal burden of proof overall. I found parts of Mr. Haughton’s evidence to be incredible.

[69] I accept Mr. Haughton’s evidence of his activities at Square One and Walmart. He took the Canada hoodie from Walmart. He was wearing blue jeans. His boots were used in the commission of the offence. The Canada hoodie was used in the commission of the offence. He used the same taxi to travel from Square One to Acorn Place to Confederation Parkway. He discarded the hoodie. This evidence is consistent with the rest of the evidence that I accept in this trial.

[70] Generally, where his evidence is corroborated by other evidence, I find Mr. Haughton was telling the truth.

[71] However, as I noted there are parts of Mr. Haughton’s evidence that I find incredible. I reject his evidence that he gave the Canada hoodie and his boots to Oshane. I reject his evidence that he waited in the taxi and did not enter acorn Place.

[72] In assessing the credibility of a witness, it is appropriate to examine any inconsistencies in what a witness said at different times. Inconsistencies on minor matters or matters of detail are normal and do not generally affect the credibility of a witness. But one or more inconsistencies involving material matters can justify concluding that the witness is neither credible nor reliable. In determining this, it is necessary to look to the totality of the inconsistencies. [^16]

[73] The following are examples of inconsistencies in the evidence of Mr. Haughton. These are presented in no particular order of importance. I have considered them collectively in any event. I also point out that I am relying on these in determining both the credibility and the reliability of his evidence.

[74] I generally found Mr. Haughton to testify in an intentional manner. He often paused and took considerable lengths of time to consider his answers. When suggestions were put to him, his evidence evolved to fit the narrative he was trying to advance.

[75] Mr. Haughton testified that he would not come to court and lie. In the past, he always plead guilty to his “charges”. This was ultimately established to be false in cross-examination. Mr. Haughton’s explanation thereafter was logically and grammatically nonsensical. He attempted to explain that he did not mean he always pleaded guilty. I find that Mr. Haughton was attempting to bolster his credibility. Unfortunately, his attempt failed when the Crown established his claim was not true.

[76] Some of what Mr. Haughton testified to was inconsistent between his evidence in chief and cross-examination. For example, Mr. Haughton testified in chief that he tried on the Canada hoodie. In cross, he twice denied trying the hoodie on, claiming that he just put it on a left the store. This might otherwise be an insignificant inconsistency, except his denial came at a point in the cross-examination where the Crown was suggesting the hoodie was for him. Realizing that if he tried on the hoodie, it might suggest the sweater was for him, Mr. Haughton attempted to distance himself from an item of clothing used in the offence.

[77] Mr. Haughton provided evidence in cross-examination about why he took the sweater inconsistent from what he told the police in his videotaped statement. Mr. Haughton initially told the police that he took the sweater because Oshane asked him to get him some clothes. In cross-examination, Mr. Haughton claimed getting the sweater was his idea. Both of these versions were further contradicted by another portion of Mr. Haughton’s statement to the police. Closer to the beginning of the statement, Mr. Haughton informed the police he was in Walmart trying on clothes ‘ “all types of clothes, just clothes” [^17] .

[78] Mr. Haughton ultimately settled on a conclusion that he gave his friend the hoodie and his shoes so that his friend would not be recognized when going into Acorn Place. I found this evidence curious. It is inconsistent with two of the three reasons Mr. Haughton provided for obtaining the hoodie.

[79] Ultimately, Mr. Haughton testified that he suspected his friend might do something wrong at Acorn Place. Though he hoped Oshane would not do anything wrong with his shoes.

[80] Considering, the whole of the evidence, I reject this testimony. As I noted, it simply does not align with the remaining evidence that I do accept. Mr. Haughton was attempting to distance himself from any suggestion that he committed this offence.

[81] Mr. Haughton testified that Oshane gave the hoodie back after leaving Acorn Place. Though Mr. Haughton did not want the sweater, exited the taxi and put the sweater on under his parka. Mr. Haughton then walked down an alley beside the building an threw the sweater over a fence. He did this without any knowledge of the sweater being involved in any wrongdoing. I did not find this evidence persuasive. On a credibility assessment, I find this evidence was a further attempt to distance himself from any involvement in the offence.

[82] Further, Mr. Haughton’s explanations for discarding the hoodie were inconsistent. In his police statement, he stated that he was told to throw it out. In court, he threw it away because he did not need more clothing. I note that Mr. Haughton initially denied putting the hoodie back on after the taxi. When confronted with images, Mr. Haughton admitted to putting it on.

[83] Mr. Haughton’s explanation of the colour of the pants worn by the assailant and his inability to run were not persuasive. Mr. Haughton would not admit that the pants worn by the person in Acorn Place were blue. He further stated that due to his Asthma, he could not have run like the person running from Acorn Place. The video surveillance provide a stark contrast to both these assertions. As I have noted, the Acorn place video clearly shows the male wearing blue pants. Further, Mr. Haughton’s movements within the Walmart store show that he was able to move at a brisk pace.

[84] I have considered all of Mr. Haughton’s evidence. I have considered it in light of the remaining evidence in this trial. After doing so, I find that Mr. Haughton was not a credible witness. His evidence that he was not the person who entered Acorn Place is not believable.

[85] His evidence does not leave me with a doubt. Nor does the evidence otherwise leave me with a doubt.

[86] Notwithstanding my assessment of Mr. Haughton’s credibility and the reliability of his evidence, I must consider any reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence I do accept.

[87] When assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider other "plausible theories" and other "reasonable possibilities" which are inconsistent with guilt [^18] . In distinguishing between a plausible theory and speculation the trier of fact must consider whether the circumstantial evidence, in light of logic and human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than guilt [^19] .

[88] Mr. Haughton testified it was Oshane that went into Acorn Place. Even though I do not believe Mr. Haughton, if this is a reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence or otherwise, Mr. Haughton would be entitled to an acquittal. Reasonable doubt need not be based on an inference or a finding of fact at trial [^20] . I note further that inferences consistent with innocence need not arise from proven facts and reasonable doubt is not speculative simply because it arises from a lack of evidence [^21] .

[89] I have specifically considered the possibility that Mr. Haughton switched clothing with Oshane. I am satisfied that this is not a reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence. I have previously noted that I do not accept Mr. Haughton’s evidence in this regard. Moreover, Oshane can be clearly seen on the videos wearing grey pants with a white stripe down the side of the leg. As I noted, there is some form of logo on the left shin of his pants. None of these identifiable features can be observed on the pants of the person in the Acorn Place videos. The male in the Acorn Place videos is wearing plain blue pants or jeans.

[90] I note further my observations of the body size and movements of the person in the Acorn Place videos.

[91] There is further support for this conclusion in the taxi driver’s evidence. Mr. Arif did not see any movement in his taxi consistent with the exchange of clothing or putting on clothing.

[92] I find, as argued by the Crown, that the only reasonable inference on the evidence I accept is that Mr. Haughton entered Acorn Place and broke into Mr. Prempeh’s apartment.

Conclusion

[93] I am not left with any doubt that Mr. Haughton is the person who entered Joseph Prempeh’s apartment and assaulted him.

[94] Accordingly, Mr. Haughton is found guilty of Break, Enter and Commit, Assault with a Weapon, Failing to Comply with a Release Order, and Theft Under, as charged in both Informations.

Released: November 8, 2024 Signed: Justice Andrew F. Falls

Footnotes

[^1]: R. v. W. (D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, [1991] S.C.J. No. 26 (S.C.C.), [1991] 93 (SCC). [^2]: R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144, [2000] S.C.J. No. 40 (S.C.C.) at para. 242. [^3]: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 613, at paras. 28, 36. [^4]: R. v. Menard, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 109; R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345. [^5]: R. v. Morrissey, [1995] O.J. No. 639 (Ont. C.A.) per Doherty J.A. at para 33; R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, [2009] O.J. No. 214 (Ont. C.A.) per Watt J.A. at para. 41; R. v. Slatter, 2019 ONCA 807, [2019] O.J. No. 5073 Ont. C.A. per Trotter J.A. at para. 60; Paciocco and Stuesser, The Law of Evidence, 6th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011), pp. 32 to 33. [^6]: R. v. J.J.R.D., [2006] O.J. No. 4749 (Ont. C.A.) per Doherty J.A. at para 47; R. v. J.W., 2014 ONCA 340, [2014] O.J. No. 1979 (Ont. C.A.) per Benotto J.A. at para. 26. [^7]: R. v. Norman, [1993] O.J. No. 2802 (Ont. C.A.) per Finlayson J.A.; R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, [2009] O.J. No. 214 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 19; R. v. G.G., [1997] O.J. No. 1501 (Ont. C.A.) per Finlayson J.A. at paras. 14 to 19; R. v. Gostick, [1999] O.J. No. 2357 (Ont.C.A.) per Finlayson J.A. at paras. 15 to 17. Law Society of Upper Canada v. Neinstein (2010), 2010 ONCA 193, 99 O.R. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.) per Doherty J.A. at para 66. [^8]: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, [2009] O.J. No. 214 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 27; R. v. M.G., [1994] O.J. No. 2086 (Ont. C.A.) per Galligan J.A. at para. 23; R. v. Gostick, [1999] O.J. No. 2357 (Ont.C.A.) at para. 14. [^9]: R. v. C.P., 2021 SCC 19, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1, at para. 35; R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 266; R. v. W.H., 2013 SCC 22, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 1, at para. 32 [W.H.]; R. v. Francois, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827, at para. 14. [^10]: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 613, [2016] S.C.J. No. 33. [^11]: R v Chu, 2023 ONCA 183 at para. 5. [^12]: Villaroman, supra at para. 35. [^13]: I have referred to 360 Centre Drive as Confederation Park to be consistent with the witness evidence. In Mississauga, City Centre Drive is a small street that runs northeast off the larger thoroughfare, Confederation Parkway. This is in the same geographic area as Square One Shopping Centre. [^14]: R v Aitken, 2012 BCCA 134 at para. 84; leave to the SCC refused, [2012] SCCA No 481. [^15]: R v White, 2011 SCC 13 at para. 17-22. [^16]: R. v. R.W.B., [1993] B.C.J. No. 758 (B.C.C.A.) per Rowles J.A. at para 29; R. v. M.G., [1994] O.J. No. 2086 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 24; R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, [2009] O.J. No. 214 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 27; R. v. A.M., 2014 ONCA 769, [2014] O.J. No. 5241 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 12 to 13. [^17]: Statement of Jermaine Haughton, January 11, 2023, pg. 24, line 12-23. [^18]: Villaroman, supra at para. 37. [^19]: Ibid., at para. 38. [^20]: Ibid., at para. 28. [^21]: Ibid., at para. 35-36.