R. v. Wills, 2014 SCC 73, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 612

The appellant, Kevin Janeiro, appealed his convictions for robbery and having his face masked, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable and the trial judge materially misapprehended evidence, particularly regarding identity and lost security video.

The Court of Appeal found the convictions unreasonable due to material misapprehensions of evidence concerning fingerprint and DNA evidence, and the importance of the lost security video.

The court also found a Charter breach due to the negligent loss of the security video.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and verdicts of acquittal substituted.

The appellant was convicted of offences arising from a home invasion robbery in Leamington, Ontario.

He appealed his convictions on two grounds: (1) that text messages obtained from the service provider should have been excluded as obtained in violation of his Charter rights, and (2) that the trial judge erred in accepting certain incriminating parts of a witness's testimony despite finding the witness to be fundamentally dishonest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while Charter breaches occurred, the text messages were admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the trial judge's treatment of the witness's evidence was neither illogical nor inconsistent.

The accused in a 29-count indictment for theft, kidnapping, robbery, and possession of property obtained by crime brought directed verdict applications at the close of the Crown's case.

The applications were dismissed, with the court finding that the Crown's circumstantial evidence, particularly cell phone data showing symmetrical movement and association between the accused, was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt for each count.

The court clarified the legal test for directed verdicts in circumstantial cases, rejecting the defence's argument that evidence must be inconsistent with any other explanation.