The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.
At trial, the judge found serious breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter and excluded evidence obtained from a warrantless search of the appellant's property and residence.
However, the trial judge convicted the appellant based on an in-dock identification by a civilian eyewitness.
On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge failed to properly instruct himself on the inherent frailties of eyewitness identification, particularly in-dock identification without a prior identification procedure.
Given the lack of corroborative evidence and the unreliability of the identification, the conviction was quashed and an acquittal was entered.
