COURT FILE NO.: CR-17-50000804 DATE: 20180906 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – PAUL WEEDEN

S. Adams, for the Crown M. Cremer, for the Defendant

HEARD: August 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

H. mcarthur j.:

Introduction

[1] Paul Weeden is facing one count of aggravated assault and numerous gun related charges. [1]

[2] The charges arise from an incident in the early morning hours of April 25, 2016. On that date, a dispute erupted between a number of people outside of a club in downtown Toronto. A man wearing a red/orange vest shot a gun towards some of the people. The bullet went through the car door of a nearby Uber driver and struck him in the shoulder.

[3] The real issue in this trial is identification. It is conceded that if the Crown establishes that Mr. Weeden was the shooter he must be convicted of all counts. Conversely, if the Crown fails to establish Mr. Weeden’s identification as the shooter, he must be acquitted.

[4] The Crown argues that surveillance images from outside the club and images from an event inside the club, clothing associated with Mr. Weeden, a car associated with Mr. Weeden and intercepted communications all establish beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Weeden was the shooter. The defence counters by noting frailties in each of the areas of evidence relied upon by the Crown. She argues that the evidence is insufficient to ground a conviction.

[5] In assessing the arguments of counsel, I keep in mind that Mr. Weeden is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Crown has proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not enough for me to believe that Mr. Weeden is possibly or even probably guilty. I must be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a standard, reasonable doubt does not require proof beyond all doubt, nor is it proof to an absolute certainty. At the same time, reasonable doubt lies far closer to absolute certainty than it does to a balance of probabilities.

[6] I propose to outline the facts briefly before turning to my analysis.

Brief Outline of the Facts

a) The Coast2Coast Event

[7] On April 24, 2016, Studio Bar at 824 Dundas Street West in Toronto hosted a rapping competition put on by Coast2Coast. D.C. Chris Miller knew about the event ahead of time, as he had been told that Llamall Weeden (Llamall) was competing. Llamall is Paul Weeden’s older brother and was known to the police. Llamall performed that night under his moniker ‘Big Money’.

[8] During the event, a photographer from Coast2Coast took video footage of the performances. Coast2Coast ultimately compiled a number of clips from the event. The clips showed the various performers, including Llamall, as well as numerous shots of audience members at the club.

b) The Shooting

[9] Shortly after midnight on April 25, 2016, a number of people left Studio Bar. Surveillance images show that a young black male, with a short afro, wearing a red/orange puffy vest over a gray hooded sweatshirt with a large white decal on the front exited the club with others. A dispute then erupted between a number of people. The man in the red/orange vest ran towards Palmerston Avenue. He returned quickly and brandished a gun at one of the men whom had been involved in a dispute with a man in a white tank top. The Crown alleges that Llamall was the man in the white tank top.

[10] The man in the white tank top then began punching and fighting with others. Shortly after, the man in the red/orange vest fired his gun. He did not hit anyone involved in the dispute. Rather, the bullet went through the car door of Abdisalam Ali, an Uber driver who was waiting nearby to pick up his fare. The bullet hit Mr. Ali in the shoulder. There is no dispute that the injuries suffered by Mr. Ali amount to an aggravated assault.

[11] Studio Bar had two surveillance cameras. The first camera faced eastbound and captured images of people leaving the bar and part of the dispute. The DVD from this camera was referred to as the “door video”. The second camera faced westbound and captured images of part of the dispute and the shooting. The DVD from this camera was referred to as the “shooting video”. Because of the angles of the cameras, some of the dispute occurs off screen.

[12] In addition to surveillance images, a witness, Tyler Newsome, testified that he saw a black male in his 20’s wearing a red/orange vest pointing a gun.

c) The Shooter Flees the Scene

[13] After the shooting, the man in the red/orange vest fled and ran back towards Palmerston Avenue. About 45 seconds later, a car drove the wrong way northbound on Palmerston, and then turned west onto Dundas, cutting off another car. The car then drove westbound along Dundas. D.C. Miller testified that he viewed images of the car from both the door and shooting video. Based on those images, he believed that the car may be a Dodge Dart.

[14] D.C. Miller testified that he then received a DVD depicting another view of the car. Officers from his division had been tasked with checking with local business to see if they had any useful footage. D.C. Miller testified that an unknown officer had dropped the DVD off and he believed that the camera used for the images was located over a pharmacy. The DVD with these images was referred to as the “car video”.

[15] D.C. Miller testified that the images from the car video were clearer and helped him become more certain that the car depicted was newer model Dodge Dart. D.C. Miller testified that he likes cars, and had some familiarity with this model, as his good friend from high school had a Dodge Dart.

d) The Images from Coast2Coast

[16] D.C. Miller contacted Coast2Coast and obtained links to short clips that had been prepared from video taken from inside the Studio Bar during the rap competition. The clips featured different performers from the event and also depicted members of the audience.

[17] The images were better quality than the images from the door and shooting videos. D.C. Miller found several images of a man wearing a red/orange vest with a grey sweatshirt with a large white decal on the front. D.C. Miller testified that he was also able to see that the man was wearing white running shoes with what appeared to be gray or silver lace-guards. None of the clips showed anyone else dressed in a similar fashion to the man in the red/orange vest.

[18] Since Llamall was one of the performers that night, he was prominently featured in one of the links forwarded to D.C. Miller. There is no dispute that the man featured in the clip as Llamall Weeden is Mr. Paul Weeden’s older brother. In the clips forwarded by Coast2Coast, when the man in the red/orange vest can be seen, he is often standing next to Llamall.

[19] That said, the clips are brief and show only snippets of the event. It is clear that some images are edited together without regard to chronology. For example, during the clip featuring Llamall, images of his performance are interspersed with scenes from the audience where Llamall can be seen standing in the crowd. Clearly, he could not be in two places at the same time.

e) The Intercepted Communications

[20] In June, 2016, Llamall was arrested in a large guns and gangs investigation known as Project Sizzle. D.C. Miller reached out to investigators to see if there were any intercepted communications from around the time of the shooting that might have useful information. D.C. Mike Murphy gave D.C. Miller a number of calls deemed relevant.

[21] On these calls, D.C. Miller heard Llamall speaking a number of times to an unknown man who was using phone number 647-760-2332. On the night of the rap contest, the wires reveal this man speaking with Llamall, and asking if he will be searched before going inside the club. Llamall told him that he would be wanded before coming in but that there would be no pat down.

[22] The intercepts also reveal that within minutes of the shooting, Llamall called the man, asked if he had left, and told him that he had gone back to the club to make sure he was “bless”. The man responded that the “Feds” were going that way and that they kept passing him. The man then said he was “going back to “Sauga”. He then told Llamall that he was turning his phones off. The man said to “check me at the crib” and Llamall told him that he was “coming over there.”

[23] Just over 20 minutes later, the man called Llamall. At that time, the male said “Yow your dumb ass is in the elevator, aren’t you?” and chastised him for being on camera. The man sounded excitable and angry and said to Llamall, “because of you fucking this shit happens, bro”.

[24] D.C. Miller believed that the calls were highly important, but at first did not know the identity of the unknown male. After further investigation, he concluded the male on the calls was Paul Weeden. He based his conclusion on the following:

• On March 1, 2016, the man phoned Llamall in the morning to say that that he had to go to court. He called again just after 1:00 p.m. and told Llamall that he was leaving court. Investigation revealed that Mr. Weeden had a court appearance on that date.
• On March 19, 2016, Llamall phoned the man, who told him that he had just had a car accident at Burmanthorpe and Dixie. He explained to Llamall that he hit a car when the driver stopped in the middle of an intersection when he saw a fire truck. Investigation revealed that on that date, Mr. Weeden had a car accident in the area of Burmanthorpe Road and Dixie Road. Mr. Weeden rear ended another car when it stopped abruptly in an intersection for a fire truck.
• On April 20, 2016, the male phoned Llamall and told him that he had been pulled over by the police, that they had given him a speeding ticket, that they took a “half-O” from him and he almost got arrested. Investigation revealed that on that date, Mr. Weeden was stopped by the police for a traffic violation. He was ultimately given a reduced speeding ticket and a Form 9 Appearance Notice for possession contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c.19. At the time, Mr. Weeden was driving a rented 2013 grey Dodge Dart sedan. He was also wearing a red vest and jeans.

f) The Dodge Dart

[25] After learning that Mr. Weeden was driving a rented Dodge Dart on April 20, D.C. Miller went to the Swift Rent-a-Car to learn more. He discovered that Mr. Weeden had originally rented a car on March 19, the day of his accident. He returned that car on April 14 and rented a 2013 grey Dodge Dart. He returned the Dodge Dart on April 26, the day after the shooting. On the rental documents, Mr. Weeden provided a phone number of 647-760-2332. This was the phone number used by the male in the calls of interest with Llamall.

[26] After discovering that Mr. Weeden had a 2013 Dodge Dart at the time of the shooting, D.C. Miller searched the internet and pulled a picture of a 2013 Dodge Dart. He testified that he believed that the car that had driven the wrong way on Palmerston after the shooting was the same model of car for three reasons. First, the 2013 Dodge Dart had distinctive wrap around headlights. Second, the 2013 Dodge Dart had a distinctive grill. Third, the back of the 2013 Dodge Dart was a hybrid sedan and hatchback. D.C. Miller said that he saw these features in the car depicted on the car video and that led him to conclude that it was a 2013 Dodge Dart.

g) The Search Warrant

[27] On September 13, 2016, police arrested Mr. Weeden for the shooting. The police then executed a search warrant at Mr. Weeden’s apartment. Among other items, the police seized a red/orange Canada Goose vest and white running shoes with silver lace-guards.

Analysis

[28] I turn now to my analysis of whether the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Weeden was the man in the red/orange vest who shot Mr. Ali.

[29] The Crown relies on the following four areas of evidence in arguing that she has established her case beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the surveillance images and images from Studio Bar: (2) the clothing worn by the shooter and clothes associated with Mr. Weeden; (3) the Dodge Dart rented by Mr. Weeden; and (4) the intercepted communications with Llamall. I will address each in turn.

(1) The Surveillance Images and Images from Studio Bar

[30] The Crown argues that pursuant to R. v. Nikolovski, [1996] S.C.J. No. 122, I can look at the images from Studio Bar of the man in the red/orange vest depicted in the Coast2Coast clips and find beyond a reasonable doubt that the man is Mr. Weeden. The defence counters that the man wearing the red/orange vest inside of the Studio Bar, and the man wearing the red/orange vest who shot the gun are not the same person. Thus, she asserts that to the extent you can make out facial features of the man inside the club that is of no assistance in determining the identity of the shooter. I cannot accept this argument.

[31] It is clear to me that the shooter and the man wearing the red/orange vest inside of Studio Bar are the same person. Images of the shooter and the man inside the club reveal that both are young black men wearing not only a red/orange vest, but also a grey hooded sweatshirt with a white decal. Both have similar builds, and a similar hair style. Looking at the evidence in its totality, I have no doubt that the shooter is the same man depicted in the Coast2Coast clips wearing the red/orange vest inside Studio Bar.

[32] Defence counsel also argues that the images provided by Coast2Coast from inside Studio Bar during the rap contest are grainy, blurry and insufficient to make out any facial features, let alone to make an identification beyond a reasonable doubt.

[33] I have watched the Coast2Coast clips many times, on a variety of different screens. In my view, the images are of sufficient quality to make out a number of details of the man in the red/orange vest. Moreover, this man bears a striking similarity to Mr. Weeden. In particular, I note the following:

• The man appears to be about the same height and build as Mr. Weeden.
• The man is young and black, as is Mr. Weeden.
• The hairstyle of the man in the club is similar to that worn by Mr. Weeden close in time to the incident, as shown in ‘mug shots’ taken about three months earlier.
• The hairline of the man is pronounced and very similar to Mr. Weeden’s hairline.
• The man and Mr. Weeden share a similar face shape.
• The nose of the man is similar to Mr. Weeden’s.
• The man has a “cupid’s bow” between his mouth and nose, as does Mr. Weeden.
• The man’s right earlobe turns outward slightly, as does Mr. Weeden’s.

[34] I had the opportunity to see Mr. Weeden in court and compare him to the images. I find that there are significant similarities. That said, I agree with defence counsel that the images are somewhat grainy and blurry and that making an identification from such images must be approached cautiously. Thus, while based on the images I believe that the man in the red/orange vest is probably Mr. Weeden, I am unable to conclude that it is him beyond a reasonable doubt.

[35] I thus go on to consider the other evidence relied upon by the Crown.

(2) The Clothing Worn by the Shooter and Clothing Associated with Mr. Weeden

[36] The Crown fairly concedes that the vest seized from Mr. Weeden’s home is not the same vest as the one worn by the man depicted in the Coast2Coast video. I agree with this concession, as the quilting and buttons on the seized vest appear different from the vest depicted in the images.

[37] The Crown argues, however, that it is of note that on April 20, just five days before the shooting, police investigating Mr. Weeden observed him to be wearing a red vest. Defence counsel counters that the only description given by the police is red vest. There is nothing to say that it is a puffy jacket type vest such as the one worn by the shooter. It could be a suit vest, or a sweater vest. Without more detail, she argues that the evidence that Mr. Weeden owned a red vest shortly before the incident is irrelevant.

[38] In my view, however, the fact that Mr. Weeden owned a red vest days before the incident is some circumstantial evidence in support of the Crown position. That said, I agree with defence counsel that the lack of description of the vest means that this evidence is of minimal weight.

[39] The Crown relies on the fact that officers seized white running shoes with silver lace-guards from Mr. Weeden’s home, and points to images from the Coast2Coast video where she says you can clearly see similar lace-guards on the shoes worn by the man in the red/orange vest.

[40] Defence counsel counters that the images of the man from the club do not show lace-guards on his shoes. If there is anything showing on the shoes, she says it could simply be smudges of dirt. I am unable to agree. It is apparent that the marks are not smudges of dirt, as both the left and right shoe have the same dark mark, in the same spot. Moreover, having watched the clips numerous times, in my view it is clear that there are lace-guards on the shoes. I agree with the Crown that the shoes seized from Mr. Weeden’s home are highly similar to the ones worn by the suspect.

[41] That said, I have no evidence before me of Mr. Weeden’s shoe size and whether it is the same as the shoes that were seized. The shoes were not seized from Mr. Weeden’s bedroom, rather, they were found in the front hall. Given that the tenant list for the apartment suggested that another male lived there with Mr. Weeden, the inability to say whether the shoe sizes match seriously undercuts the strength of this evidence. Thus, I do not give the running shoes any weight in my analysis.

(3) The Dodge Dart Rented by Mr. Weeden

[42] Crown counsel argues that it is reasonable to infer that the shooter was in the car that drove the wrong way on Palmerston shortly after the shooting. I agree. It is true that most people involved in the dispute scattered after the shooting. But the dangerous act of driving the wrong way on a one-street (and almost cutting off a car) seems far more consistent with a perpetrator fleeing the scene in the hopes he will not be captured than of an innocent bystander who is trying to get away from the situation.

[43] Crown counsel also points out that D.C. Miller testified he was able to identify the car as a 2013 Dodge Dart from the surveillance images obtained from the car video. This is highly significant, she argues, as Mr. Weeden had rented a 2013 Dodge Dart at that time.

[44] Defence counsel counters that the images of the car in the car video are not the same car that is depicted in the door and shooting videos. In making this argument, she points out that a number of cars can be seen driving in a line in the images from the door video and the shooting video. The order of cars clearly shows the car of interest driving behind a Chrysler and being followed by an SUV, which in turn is followed by a cab. In the car video, however, the car of interest is followed by a cab, not an SUV.

[45] This is important, defence counsel argues, given D.C. Miller’s evidence that the intersection depicted in the car video is of Euclid Avenue and Dundas (the closest intersection west of Studio Bar). Since the car video does not show an SUV turning or parking, she argues that the cars depicted in the car video must be different from the cars depicted in the door and shooting videos.

[46] The Crown counters that it is clear that D.C. Miller made a mistake when he said that the intersection depicted was Euclid and Dundas. Thus, the fact that the car of interest is followed by a cab instead of an SUV is of no moment, since the SUV could have turned off on a side street. The images of the line of cars driving in the car video is identical to the line of cars depicted in the door and shooting videos, with the exception of the SUV. It is identical, she argues, as it is the same line of cars; the car are simply driving further westbound on Dundas.

[47] By comparing photographs taken of the area of Euclid and Dundas to the car video, it is apparent that D.C. Miller made a mistake about what area the car video depicted. That said, I believe D.C. Miller is likely correct in asserting that the line of cars driving westbound on Dundas as depicted in the door and shooting videos is the same line of cars as depicted in the car video.

[48] On the other hand, I have some concerns about relying on the car video. The DVD was obtained from an unknown location by an unknown officer. It clearly was not obtained from the location testified to by D.C. Miller. Further, the exact time when the images were captured is also unknown. Given these issues, in my view caution should be used before relying on the car video to identify the car of interest as a Dodge Dart.

[49] Looking at the door and shooting videos only, however, it appears that the car of interest had wrap around lights and a sedan/hatchback style rear. This is similar to a Dodge Dart. That said, the images are grainy and I am unable to conclude that the car was a 2013 Dodge Dart, only that it resembles one.

(4) The Intercepted Communications

[50] The Crown argues that the intercepted communications provide powerful circumstantial evidence confirming the identity of the shooter as Mr. Weeden. Defence counsel counters with two submissions. First, she argues that the evidence fails to establish that the man on the calls using phone number 647-760-2332 is Mr. Weeden.

[51] In my view, however, the evidence that the man using that phone number was Mr. Weeden is overwhelming. The evidence includes the following:

• The man had court on March 1. Mr. Weeden had court on March 1.
• The man had a car accident on March 19, at Burmanthorpe and Dixie, when he hit a car that stopped for a fire truck. Mr. Weeden had a car accident on March 19, at Burmanthorpe and Dixie, when he hit a car that stopped for a fire truck.
• The man was stopped for a traffic violation on April 20, and the police seized a “half-O” from him. There is no dispute that this refers to drugs. On April 20, Mr. Weeden was stopped for a traffic violation and ultimately charged with possession of marihuana.
• Mr. Weeden gave 647-760-2332 as his number when he rented a car from Swift Rent-A-Car.

[52] Looking at the evidence in its totality, I have no doubt that Mr. Weeden was the man on the calls with Llamall.

[53] Second, defence counsel argues that the calls are vague, ambiguous and open to interpretation. She argues that to the extent that the calls suggest any criminality, it is with respect to drug trafficking, not a shooting.

[54] In my view, however, four of the phone intercepts provide strong circumstantial evidence in support of the Crown’s case.

[55] The first call of import took place at 8:26:25 p.m. on April 24. Mr. Weeden called his brother Llamall and asked “where is it?” Llamall responded that it was either 824 or 826 Dundas. Studio Bar, of course, was located at 824 Dundas. Llamall told Mr. Weeden that he would “probably start” at 9:30.

[56] The second call of note occurred at 9:25:46 p.m. on April 24. In that intercept, Mr Weeden called Llamall again. He said that he was almost there, as he was at Gladstone, and asked if he should take Bathurst to Dundas. D.C. Miller testified that Gladstone is west of Studio Bar. In this call, Llamall told Mr. Weeden to link him when he was there, and that he should have 10 dollars for his ticket.

[57] In my view, these two calls establish that Mr. Weeden went to Studio Bar to see his brother Llamall perform on April 24. That is highly significant when assessed in conjunction with the images of the man in the Studio Bar wearing the red/orange vest whom I have found bears a striking resemblance to Mr. Weeden.

[58] Moreover, in the call at 9:25, Mr. Weeden asked Llamall if he was going to be searched before entering the club. Llamall replied that he would be wanded. Mr. Weeden then responded, “So don’t bring nothing’, right?” Llamall then explained that security was not going to do a pat down search. Mr. Weeden, however, said “I don’t wanna have to take no check and then they have to friggin send me back. Yow, fuck that. I’ll hold it though, don’t worry, I’m coming in there yow.”

[59] There is no dispute that this call shows that Mr. Weeden was concerned about being wanded. Defence counsel, however, argues that his concern could have been about being found with drugs. She notes that there is no specific mention of a gun. In my view, however, the concern about wanding strongly suggests that Mr. Weeden was concerned about being discovered carrying something metal, rather than being concerned about drugs. Drugs, of course, would not be discovered by wanding. A metal object, such as a gun, would. Moreover, Mr. Weeden’s comment about not wanting to be sent back but that he would “hold it” suggests that he decided not to take the metal object he was concerned about into the club. This provides support for the Crown position that Mr. Weeden stored his gun in his car, which he retrieved when he ran over to Palmerston when the dispute started.

[60] The third call of note occurred at 12:34:58 a.m. on April 25, just minutes after the shooting. At that time, Llamall called Mr. Weeden. Mr. Weeden sounded excited and was clearly in a car. Llamall told Mr. Weeden that he “cut” but then turned “back to the club” to make sure that Mr. Weeden was “bless”. I take from this call that Llamall had initially left the area of the club but then returned because he was concerned about his brother.

[61] Mr. Weeden also told Llamall in this call that the “Feds” were going towards the club and passing him. This is consistent with Mr. Weeden being in the car of interest depicted in the surveillance images driving along Dundas. Surveillance images clearly show police cars passing the car as they drive towards the area of Studio Bar.

[62] I also find this call to be of import as Mr. Weeden said that he was going to turn his phones off. A clear inference to be drawn is that Mr. Weeden was going to turn off his phones because he was worried about being investigated. Further, since he did not say anything about turning off his phones in earlier conversations with Llamall, the inference can be drawn that the concern arose sometime around the call. The call, again, took place minutes after the shooting.

[63] In this call, Mr. Weeden also said he was going back to “Sauga” and told Llamall to “check” him at his “crib”. Llamall responded that he was “coming over there.”

[64] The fourth call of note took place at 12:56:30 a.m. At this time, both Llamall’s phone and Mr. Weeden’s phone were determined to be located in the area of Hurontario Street, Mississauga, near Mr. Weeden’s apartment. Mr. Weeden called Llamall, and became angry with him for being in the elevator, saying “why you gonna be on fucking camera, dumb shit.” This suggests that Mr. Weeden is concerned about a police investigation that would encompass his brother.

[65] While defence counsel argues that the concern could be about drug trafficking, in my view, it seems clear that the concern stems from something that occurred recently for two reasons. First, Mr. Weeden lived on the 12 th floor. It seems highly unlikely that in the regular course, he would be concerned about family members taking the elevator, even if they were both involved in the drug trade. Second, Mr. Weeden sounds excited and angry at his brother in this call. This is quite different from the tone of voice used by Mr. Weeden when speaking with his brother before he went to Studio Bar. The tone he used and the content of the conversation suggests Mr. Weeden was reacting to recent events that left him worried about his brother being seen on camera.

[66] Further, in the call, Mr. Weeden tells his brother, “because of you fucking this shit happens, bro.” In my view, Mr. Weeden is clearly upset with his brother, and blames him for something that happened recently. This is consistent with Mr. Weeden blaming his brother for the shooting, as Mr. Weeden shot the gun to assist his brother who had become involved in a fight.

[67] Defence counsel argues that this inference cannot be drawn, as it is unclear from the surveillance images that it is Llamall who is involved in a fight. In particular, she notes that the man in the fight is wearing a white tank top, but when Llamall left Studio Bar, he was wearing a Blue Jays jersey and heavy jewelry.

[68] Having watched the DVD many times, it is clear to me that the man in the white tank top who becomes involved in a fight is Llamall. While it is true that when Llamall left the club he was wearing a Blue Jays jersey and jewelry, the clips from Coast2Coast establish that Llamall was wearing a white shirt, consistent with a tank top, under his Blue Jays jersey. Llamall goes off camera for a short while and when he reappears, he is in the tank top. I draw from this evidence that Llamall took off his jersey and jewelry before becoming involved in the fight. Importantly, Llamall was wearing bright white high-top sneakers. The man in the white tank top is the only one in the dispute wearing such shoes.

[69] Mr. Weeden’s comment blaming his brother for “this shit” is consistent with the surveillance images, in which Mr. Weeden appears to shoot the gun towards people who were involved in a dispute with his brother.

[70] In my view, the four calls between Mr. Weeden and Llamall that took place on April 24 and 25, provide powerful support to the position that Mr. Weeden was the shooter.

Conclusion

[71] As noted by defence counsel, there are frailties in various aspects of the Crown’s case. But I cannot simply look at each area of evidence in isolation and instead must consider the evidence in its totality.

[72] The man depicted in the Coast2Coast clips wearing the red/orange vest in Studio Bar bears a striking resemblance to Mr. Weeden. While these images do not establish on their own that Mr. Weeden is the shooter, when considered with the other evidence, in particular with the intercepted communications, the case against Mr. Weeden is made out. There is no other reasonable inference to be drawn on this evidence, except that Mr. Weeden was the man wearing the red/orange vest who shot Mr. Ali.

[73] Based on the totality of the evidence, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Weeden was the shooter. As a result, I find Mr. Weeden guilty of all counts.

Justice Heather McArthur Released: September 6, 2018

Footnotes

[1] The gun charges faced by Mr. Weeden are one count of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1), one count of possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm contrary to s. 91(2) and one count of discharge a firearm with intent contrary to s. 244(1).