Pierre-Luc Fréchette

The appellant was convicted of robbery and assault following a trial where identification was the central issue.

The Crown's case rested on the victim's identification of the appellant as one of two assailants and evidence of a conversation at the preliminary inquiry in which the appellant allegedly offered to return or replace stolen property.

The trial judge found the identification evidence had frailties but was entitled to some weight, and when combined with the appellant's statement regarding the stolen property, proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: whether the trial judge erred in giving weight to the identification evidence, and whether the trial judge misapprehended or misused the evidence relating to the conversation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error, material misapprehension of evidence, or unreasonable findings.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained a detention order rather than granting a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board made a palpable and overriding factual error regarding his propensity to decompensate and that the Board failed to adequately consider alternative mechanisms for readmission to hospital.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, finding that the Board's findings were supported by evidence and that the detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available given the appellant's risk to public safety.