ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 11-A12634

DATE: 20140121

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

ABDULAZEEZ SHITTU

Mr. D. Elhadad, for the Crown

Mr. Alain Tayeye, for the accused

HEARD: January 6, 2014

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

lalonde j.

[1] Abdulazeez Shittu is charged with:

1. THAT THE SAID Abdulazeez SHITTU on or about the 27th day of October in the year 2011 at the City of Ottawa in the East Region did attempt to rob Davin MCHARG of an OC-Transpo bus pass, contrary to Section 463, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code.

2. AND FURTHER THAT THE SAID Abdulazeez SHITTU on or about the 27th day of October in the year 2011 at the City of Ottawa in the East Region did rob Kayne MATHEWS of money, contrary to Section 344, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code.

Facts

[2] It is admitted by the accused that on the 27th day of October, 2011, he was present in the passageway leading from the John McCrae Secondary School (the school) to the Walter Baker Centre (the centre) and in the bathroom at the Walter Baker Centre where Davin McHarg and Kayne Mathews were accosted by a group of people. Identification, time and place, as well as jurisdiction, are not at issue in this case.

[3] Both counsel agreed to hold a blended voir dire in connection with a video interview given by the accused, Mr. Shittu, to Detective Denis Dupont on November 30, 2011. This means that the trial evidence will be used on the Charter motions, made verbally by counsel, dealing with: (1) Mr. Shittu’s right to be informed in a timely manner of the reasons of his arrest pursuant to s. 10(a) of the Charter; (2) the right to remain silent pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter; as well as (3) his right to be assisted by counsel pursuant to s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982. C 11.

The Evidence

[4] The Crown produced three witnesses to establish the attempt to take a bus pass and the taking of the money from the victims. Both victims testified, namely, Davin McHarg and Kayne Mathews. The Crown also called David Shiferaw to testify, as well as the led investigator Detective Denis Dupont.

[5] Abdulazeez Shittu testified on his own behalf.

[6] The evidence of Constable Ruth Zees, who took the statement from the witnesses at the school the day after the alleged robbery, namely, on October 28, 2011, was admitted. I will refer to the robbery as “the incident”.

[7] Kayne Mathews testified that, on the day in question, he was going from the school to the centre, connected by a passageway, at noon hour, to access the cafeteria at the centre. He was approached by a group of people, as many as 9 students, and Mr. Shittu placed a hand on his shoulder and directed him to the bathroom nearby. Mr. Mathews said that he was 14-years-old at the time and attending grade 9 at the school. He said also that his friend Davin McHarg was grabbed by someone else. Another friend, Corry Richardson, managed to get away.

[8] Mr. Mathews explained that Mr. Shittu was “way bigger than me” and that, considering that he was surrounded by Mr. Shittu’s friends, he had to walk to the bathroom with them. He recalled that he had asked Mr. Shittu what was going on and that he was told to “just be quiet.”

[9] Inside the bathroom, after having been pushed in first, along with Davin McHarg, Mr. Mathews testified that the students stayed in line in front of him and his friend Davin and that there was no question in his mind that he could not leave. No one used the bathroom facilities except one Rahkeem, who went to a stall.

[10] Adam Cole was the leader of the group leading the attack. He is Caucasian, as were both victims, and the others were of African American descent.

[11] Mr. Mathews testified that both he and Mr. McHarg were told to empty their pockets. Mr. McHarg had said that he had nothing in his pockets and was punched twice in the mouth and in the ribs by Adam Cole. Mr. Mathews said that Mr. Shittu was in the bathroom with the other assailants. Seeing the violence, Mr. Mathews testified that he told Adam Cole he would give him the $14.00 or $15.00 he had in his pocket to calm him down. He said that he was afraid, as Rahkeem, Adam Cole, and Mr. Shittu were older than he was. No one of the assailants intervened to make Adam Cole stop his attack.

[12] A video obtained from the school showed students entering and leaving the bathroom at the centre on the day in question. Nine stills taken from the surveillance video were made exhibits. Mr. Mathews recognized himself being pushed into the bathroom in still No. 1, which shows the time as 12:43:50 p.m. on the day in question. The video covered 3 or 4 minutes in total. Mr. Mathews recognized Adam Cole in the still of 12:45:32 p.m., and recognized himself leaving the bathroom at 12:46:19 p.m.

[13] Under cross-examination, Mr. Mathews agreed that he could not see Mr. Shittu’s face clearly on the still photographs filed.

[14] At the time of testifying at this trial, David Shiferaw was 18 years of age. Last year, that witness was a passenger in the O.C. Transpo bus that collided with a train in Ottawa and on which several people died and many were injured. He is still seeing a psychotherapist to overcome the trauma he still suffers from as a result of witnessing and being a victim in that accident.

[15] As a result of his trauma, he had to refresh his memory several times from a statement he had given to the investigating officer earlier. He testified that he knows Adam Cole and that he recalled “the incident” involving Messrs. Mathews, McHarg and Shittu. He said that there were 6 or 7 persons involved, including Adam Cole. He claimed that, going into the bathroom, he did not know that Adam Cole was going to ask the victims for money. He admitted leading Mr. McHarg into the bathroom with a hand on his shoulder.

[16] Mr. Shiferaw said that he was the only one to intervene once Adam Cole had punched Mr. McHarg. He recalled that he had told Adam Cole that Mr. McHarg needed his bus pass to get home and that Adam Cole gave this bus pass back to Mr. McHarg.

[17] Mr. Shiferaw testified that he did not know where the money taken from Mr. Mathews went after they all left the bathroom. He was shown a second statement, given to Constable Rees, where he had acknowledged that Adam Cole had placed the money on a table in the library at the centre where Mr. Shittu, himself, and a student by the name of Samuel had met. He said that they had counted the money to buy food. He also said that he had not expected trouble in the bathroom and was shocked when Adam Cole resorted to violence.

[18] Under cross-examination, Mr. Shiferaw testified that, in the bathroom, Mr. Shittu did nothing to the victims other than being present there when Adam Cole ordered the victims to empty their pockets. He was adamant that the $7.00 he received in the library from Adam Cole was not necessarily part of the money that Adam Cole had stolen from Mr. Mathews. He maintained that, at the preliminary hearing, he had said that he had received $7.00 from Adam Cole and not that he had received $7.00 after the stolen money had been split.

[19] Mr. McHarg testified that he had been led, during the incident, to the bathroom by a group of 7 people. He stated that he had seen Mr. Shittu at school and Rahkeem had been in his class at another school. His evidence confirmed largely the evidence given by Kayne Mathews as to how they ended up on the bathroom with 7 people and without any real ability to leave. He testified that Adam Cole had hit him in the face and in the ribs.

[20] Looking at the still photographs filed as Exhibit 23, he acknowledged that he could not identify the 3 students in the still photograph labelled with the time 12:46:01, as he could not see their faces, but he recognized himself wearing a white hat in the still at 12:46:10 and his friend Kayne Mathews in still 12:46:19. During cross-examination, he changed his mind and said that he believed Rahkeem could be seen leaving the bathroom in the still 12:46:01.

[21] Mr. Shittu testified in his defence. He said that he was scared when he met Detective Dupont at the main Ottawa Police station. An appointment had been set the previous evening between them after Detective Dupont had talked to his father. He testified, at trial, that he could not indentify anyone in the video or still photographs made from the surveillance video and filed as exhibits.

[22] At the very beginning of his testimony, Mr. Shittu answered his counsel’s questions, admitting that, after the incident, he had met with Adam Cole in the school library and had received $2.00 from Adam Cole. He said that he had asked Adam Cole for some money to by a drink.

[23] Mr. Shittu confirmed the incident involving the confrontation in the bathroom where Davin McHarg was punched. He stated that he and his friends were in shock when Adam Cole had punched Mr. McHarg. He testified that he got nothing from the money taken by Adam Cole from Mr. Mathews in the bathroom.

[24] Mr. Shittu denied the following:

•that there was a discussion between him, the others, and Adam Cole to attack anyone;

•that he had used any force on anyone involved in the incident;

•that he had understood everything that Detective Dupont told him in the interview room, due to his nervousness;

•that he told Detective Dupont that he had divided some of the money that had been extracted by Adam Cole from Mr. Mathews;

•that he had made threats of bodily harm to Mr. Mathews after the incident;

•that he had forced or pushed Mr. Mathews to go in the bathroom from the passageway connecting the school to the centre.

[25] During cross-examination Mr. Shittu stated that:

• he is 6” to 6”2, weighing between 180 to 183 lbs, that he has completed his grade 12 in High School and that he is now attending the Police Foundation Program at Algonquin College;

• he had not been in the bathroom during the incident to use the bathroom facilities, but to “hang out” with his friends;

• he did not intervene when Adam Cole asked the two victims to empty their pockets;

• he had not intervened when Adam Cole punched Davin McHarg, because he was in shock, even though he was present in the bathroom;

• he was 1 of the 6 or 7 people present at the incident and that he knew that a robbery was taking place.

[26] Mr. Shittu stated that he could not recognize Adam Cole on the video or the still photographs despite the fact that he has known Adam Cole for 2 or 3 years. He also claimed that he had been followed to the library by Adam Cole, Jamal, and David Shiferaw.

[27] Mr. Shittu admitted that, of his friends present at the incident, namely, Jamal, David, Rahkeem, Adam and Elijah none came to testify on his behalf. He also acknowledged that, while walking from the passageway to the bathroom, he knew that Davin McHarg was not following him and his friends willingly and that he knew that something was going to happen.

[28] Mr. Shittu admitted his involvement in the robbery during an interview with Detective Dupont, held at the Ottawa Police Station on November 30, 2011. The statements were admitted into evidence during a ruling I gave on November 9, 2013, in which I ruled that the admissions were voluntarily made by Mr. Shittu from his free will.

[29] The evidence from Mr. Shittu’s interview with Detective Dupont that I accept as evidence in this trial is as follows:

(Transcript at p. 9)

As: He split the money with me, David and Jemal

Dd: What’s that?

As: he split the money with me, David and Jemal

Dd: With you and somebody else?

As: 2 other people

Dd: 2 other people?

As: ya

Dd: I’ll just down eh, the other names. What’s they eh, what’s the eh, so eh, so, he split the money with Mr. Cole, split the money with you and

As: Jemal

Dd: Jemal, how do you spell that?

As: Eh, it’s Jamal

Dd: MAL?

As: ya

Dd: is it first name or last name?

As: First name

Dd: What is his last name?

As: Maxwell

Dd: Maxwell, and eh, did Mr. Maxwell eh, physically assaulted

As: No

(Transcript at p.10)

Dd: did he eh, did he eh, was he leading them towards the eh, helping you guys

Aa: eh

Dd: leading them towards the bathroom?

Aa: ya

Dd: ok. So money was divided

Aa: ya ya

Dd: between Mr. Cole eh, Mr. Maxwell and yourself? $12.00

As: and a fourth person

Dd: Was there a four?

As: David Shiferaw. SHIFERAW

[30] Then, at p. 15, the context is that Detective Dupont is discussing Mr. Shiferaw’s involvement with Mr. Shittu:

Dd: help, helping eh, ok. Helping Adam?

As: No Devin, he helped Devin get up, like he broke it up

Dd: ok. So Devin did, ok. Eh, but, but only, only Adam and yourself eh, took the two victims by the shoulder and lead them to the eh bathroom?

As: ya

[31] Detective Dupont testified that he has been with the Ottawa Police Services for the past 18 years. He confirmed that, prior to his interview of November 30, 2011, when he had spoken to both Mr. Shittu’s dad and to Mr. Shittu, he had advised Mr. Shittu (the accused) that he would be charged with 2 counts of robbery and that it would be best for him to obtain legal advice.

[32] Mr. Shittu, according to Detective Dupont, came voluntarily to the police station for an interview on the evening of November 30, 2011. As I have summarized his evidence on the voluntariness of Mr. Shittu’s statement yesterday, I will not repeat the evidence.

Position of Mr. Shittu

[33] Defence counsel argues that I should not rely on David Shiferaw’s evidence as, contrary to Mr. Shittu, as his evidence was not videotaped and the several indicia of credibility and reliability available to the Judge as a trier of fact where a witness testifies at trial were not available. This prevented the trial Judge to assess the reliability of the out-of-court statement.

The danger of inaccurate recounting was not eliminated; D. Watt J.A., in R. v. Adjei, 2013 ONCA 512, 309 O.A.C. 328 at paras. 40 and 42, stated what should happen in this situation:

[40] In the end, for out-of-court statements of non-accused witnesses to be admissible as evidence of the truth of their contents, the B.(K.G.) indicia are not the exclusive means of establishing threshold reliability. The threshold reliability of a non-accused witness' prior inconsistent statement may be established by:

i. the presence of adequate substitutes for testing truth and accuracy (procedural reliability); and

ii. sufficient circumstantial guaranties of reliability or inherent trustworthiness (substantive reliability).

Khelawon, at paras. 61-63; R. v. Youvarajah, 2013 SCC 41, at para. 30. These two principal ways of establishing threshold reliability are not mutually exclusive: R. v. Devine, 2008 SCC 36, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 283, at para. 22; Youvarajah, at para. 30.

[42] First, Amofah's out-of-court statement was videotaped in its entirety. Thus, the several indicia of credibility and reliability available to the judge as a trier of fact where a witness testifies at trial were available equally in connection with the out-of-court statement. The reproduction of the statement and the video recording eliminated the danger of inaccurate recounting, an important factor underlying the rule excluding hearsay evidence.

[34] As a result defence counsel maintained that Mr. Shiferaw’s testimony is not reliable.

[35] Defence counsel pointed to the fact that Kayne Mathews never said in his evidence that Mr. Shittu took money, or that he actively robbed him. Mr. Mathews only said that Mr. Shittu stood there. Following the law on aiding and abetting as set out in R. v. McKay, 2012 ABCA 310, 84 Alta. L.R. (5th) 404, in paras. 14 and 15 of the decision, defence counsel maintained that his client did nothing in the bathroom and that he was not part of a scheme to rob the two victims. Defence counsel claimed that Davin McHarg’s evidence was similar to that of Mr. Mathews and that it did not implicate Mr. Shittu in the robbery.

[36] Because his client did not do anything or omit to do anything for the purpose of aiding Adam Cole to commit a robbery or an attempted theft, the second element of s. 21 of the Criminal Code is missing and his client should be acquitted. His client did not do anything to make him a party to the offences.

Crown Counsel’s Position

[37] Crown counsel takes the position that Mr. Shittu aided and abetted Adam Cole to attempt to rob Davin McHarg of his bus pass and to rob Kayne Mathews of $12.00 to $15.00. He relied on s. 21 of the Criminal Code for the definition of aiding and abetting.

[38] Section 21 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:

21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who

a. (a) actually commits it;

b. (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or

c. (c) abets any person in committing it.

[39] Crown counsel explained that one original robbery count was reduced to attempted theft (Count No. 1) once the investigation revealed that Davin McHarg’s bus pass was returned to him while he was still in the bathroom at the centre.

[40] The wording of s. 21 of the Criminal Code makes Mr. Shittu a party to the offence of attempted theft and robbery because:

• He was part of the 7 or 9 people who confronted both victims in the hallway of the centre;

• Mr. Shittu lead Mr. Mathews towards the bathroom and told him to keep quiet;

• Mr. Shittu was in the bathroom with the victims, who were prevented from leaving;

• Aside from Adam Cole’s actions, the other persons, including Mr. Shittu, blocked the exit by standing in a line to prevent the victims from leaving;

• Once Davin McHarg got punched by Adam Cole, Mr. Shittu did nothing, although common sense must have told him that he was part of a shakedown and that a classical swarming was taking place.

• Circumstantial evidence points to a plan to rob the victims:

(i) Mr. Shittu and his friends formed a line in the bathroom preventing Mr. Mathews and Mr. McHarg from leaving;

(ii) Mr. Shittu led Mr. Mathews to the bathroom by placing a hand on his shoulders;

(iii) The presence of 7 or 9 persons, friends of Mr. Shittu was intimidating – grade 12 students ordering two grade 9 students of much smaller size to walk in a nearby bathroom against their will;

(iv) Mr. Shittu’s impromptu and unprovoked remarks to Detective Dupont during the November 30th interview showed that Mr. Shittu and his friends wanted money and that they divided Mr. Mathew’s money in the library.

Analysis

[41] First, I will analyse the evidence of Abdulzeez Shittu. I am not impressed by his evidence as it does not stand up to close scrutiny. While testifying, when Mr. Shittu was showed the still photographs made from the surveillance video, he, without taking time to study the photographs, claimed that he did not recognize anyone of his friends. Based on the fact that he admitted to Detective Dupont during the video interview that he had been present in the bathroom and on the fact that the students shown on the surveillance video were his friends, I do not believe that Mr. Shittu could not identify himself on the first photographs, wearing white sneakers similar to the very visible white sneakers he wore for his interview with Detective Dupont, one month later.

[42] More telling about his credibility was the fact that, on at least two occasions, he asked Crown counsel to repeat a perfectly clear and audible question. When he was asked whether he knew that Adam Cole was robbing Kayne Mathews in his presence in the bathroom he said “would you repeat the question?” Next, when he was asked to clarify how he got $2.00 from the $12.00 Adam Cole had in the library, Mr. Shittu again asked for a perfectly clear question to be repeated.

[43] Mr. Shittu’s insistence that the $2.00 he received from Adam Cole was a gift was also unbelievable. I arrive at that conclusion because, when being interviewed by Detective Dupont at the police station on November 30, 2011, Mr. Shittu, who wanted to come clean about the incident, told Detective Dupont that he had split the money with Jamal, David, and Adam Cole. At trial, Mr. Shittu maintained that it was a misunderstanding and that, by naming a 4th person involved in splitting the money during his interview with Detective Dupont, he had wanted “to come clean.”

[44] The video interview contradicted Mr. Shittu on most of his evidence given in chief. He had to let go of the evidence that there was a misunderstanding concerning the money he split with 3 other people. He had to admit that there was a plan in place, as he had told Detective Dupont that the idea of taking the victims to the bathroom was to scare them.

[45] I remind myself that, following R v. W.(D.), [1991] S.C.R. 742, to prove Mr. Shittu is guilty I am required to do more than ask myself whether I believe the accused’s evidence, and that it is more than a question of choosing between the evidence of the Crown witnesses and that of the accused.

[46] First, if I believe the evidence of the accused, obviously I must acquit. Second, if I do not believe the evidence of the accused but I am left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, I must acquit. Thirdly, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, I must ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence I do accept, I am convinced by the evidence of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

[47] This third element leads me to consider the remaining evidence heard at this trial to conclude whether or not the Crown has proven the charges against Mr. Shittu beyond a reasonable doubt.

[48] Reasonable doubt is not a farfetched or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice. It is doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that arises from the evidence or lack of evidence: R. v. Lifchus, 1997 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320.

[49] It is not enough for me to believe that Mr. Shittu is probably or likely guilty. In those circumstances I would have to find him not guilty as the Crown would have failed to satisfy me of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[50] However, it is nearly impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. Crown counsel is not required to do so.

[51] Defence counsel is wrong in stating that David Shiferaw’s credibility is diminished because his interviews were not tape-recorded. Crown counsel assured the court that Mr. Shiferaw’s two interviews were tape-recorded and the defence counsel has viewed these. Because of Mr. Shiferaw’s tragic incident in an O.C. Transpo bus accident, I allowed him to refresh his memory from his statement. He was sincere in giving his evidence and confirmed that Mr. Shittu was present during the incident. He intervened in the bathroom to allow Davin McHarg to keep his bus pass. I remind myself of what we tell juries, that they may believe all of a witnesses’ evidence, part of it or none at all. I disbelieve Mr. Shiferaw’s concerning where the money he got came from: he claimed that he did not know and that the $7.00 could have come from Adam Cole’s own funds. I do, however, accept his evidence that Mr. Shittu was in the bathroom when the robbery took place and that if Davin McHarg was able to keep his bus pass it was because of his intervention.

[52] I was impressed by the evidence that Kayne Mathews gave. He did not embellish his evidence when asked how much Mr. Shittu weighed at the time of the incident. He immediately replied that he did not know, even though he could have said that he was very big. He recalled that he had seen Mr. Shittu at his school and I believe him when he said that Mr. Shittu had placed a hand on his shoulder and had directed him to a nearby bathroom, and that Mr. Shittu had told him to remain quiet when he had asked Mr. Shittu what was going on. Given the difference in physical size between him and Mr. Shittu and his friends, it is common sense for me to conclude that both victims were scared and felt threatened.

[53] I believe Davin McHarg when he testified that force was used on him and on Kayne Mathews as well. He too did not embellish his evidence and confirmed most of the evidence of the incident given by Kayne Mathews and David Shiferaw. He carefully reviewed the still photographs made from the surveillance video and corrected the evidence he had just given on the identification of one photograph. Looking at the students leaving the bathroom, he did not hesitate to say that he could not recognize them as he could not see their faces. He recognized himself on photo No. 8 because of the hat he was wearing that day. I believe him when he said that he was warned, two days after the incident, by Mr. Shiferaw that Mr. Shittu and Adam Cole were waiting for him outside the school to do him harm.

[54] Turning now to R. v. Dunlop, 1979 20 (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881 at para. 43, I find that the majority of the court explained how one becomes a party to an offence as follows:

… Presence at the commission of an offence can be evidence of aiding and abetting if accompanied by other factors, such as prior knowledge of the principal offender's intention to commit the offence, or attendance for the purpose of encouragement. There was no evidence that while the crime was being committed either of the accused rendered aid, assistance, or encouragement to the rape of [B.R.]. There was no evidence of any positive act or omission to facilitate the unlawful purpose. One can infer that the two accused knew that a party was to be held and that their presence at the dump was not accidental or in the nature of casual passers-by, but that is not sufficient. A person cannot properly be convicted of aiding or abetting in the commission of acts which he does not know may be or are intended … One must be able to infer that the accused had prior knowledge that an offence of the type committed was planned, i.e., that their presence was with knowledge of the intended rape. …

[55] In the case at bar, I find that Mr. Shittu aided and abetted the robbery and the attempted theft as a party to the offences for the following reasons:

(a) I believe that both victims were telling the truth; Mr. Mathews was grabbed by the shoulder by Mr. Shittu and was directed to the bathroom, and Mr. McHarg was grabbed by the shoulder by Adam Cole, and also directed to the bathroom.

(b) I believe that a scared Mr. Mathews asked Mr. Shittu what was going on and that Mr. Shittu told him to remain quiet.

[56] This makes Mr. Shittu a party to the offences and part of a plan concocted to rob both victims. It is common sense that leads me to believe that the two small grade 9 students were scared out of their wits by the two grade 12 assailants and their friends who accompanied them and who, once in the bathroom, made it impossible for the victims to leave.

[57] Therefore, Mr. Shittu knew that he was taking part in a shakedown and that a classical swarming was taking place.

[58] Mr. Shittu’s explanation that he joined the others in the bathroom just to hang out with his friends is not credible. Circumstantial evidence allows me to conclude, on the contrary, that a plan had been concocted by Mr. Shittu and his friends to rob the two students. The evidence that both victims were led to the bathroom by force is not seriously challenged. There was strength in numbers; several students surrounded the victims and forced the victims to accompany them to the bathroom. What is worse for Mr. Shittu is that, once in the bathroom, and when Adam Cole hit Kayne Mathews, he did nothing to intervene. Mr. Shittu did not stop Adam Cole’s violent behaviour because he was a part of it. His own statements to Detective Dupont, at page 12 of the November 30, 2011, interview, contradict his evidence that he went into the bathroom to hang out with his friends. He said: “Ah honestly, I was gonna scare them, play, punch them was unexpected.” He also told Detective Dupont that the plan was to demand money from the victims.

[59] Finally, Mr. Shittu told Detective Dupont that Adam Cole gave him money and that he split the money taken from Kayne Mathews. Mr. Shittu attempted to convince me, while testifying, that the money that he had received from Adam Cole was a gift, but it was too late. He had already told Detective Dupont, on November 30, 2011, that he had split the money with Adam Cole shortly after leaving the bathroom at the Walter Baker Centre and after going to the library at the centre.

[60] My findings, that Mr. Shittu was a party to the offence of robbery, apply equally to the attempted theft charge. A crime of violence can be done with threats of bodily harm. Although I did not accept all of David Shiferaw’s evidence, I believe him when he said that both Mr. Shittu and Adam Cole were planning to do bodily harm to Kayne Mathews, after school, two days after the incident. I find that there was violence, that there was a wrongful taking of money and that Mr. Shittu was a party to the offences.

Please stand Mr. Shittu:

[61] I find you guilty on both counts in the indictment.

Mr. Justice Paul F. Lalonde

Released: January 21, 2014

COURT FILE NO.: 11-A12634
DATE: 20140121

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

ABDULAZEEZ SHITTU

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Lalonde J.

Released: January 21, 2014