COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-1737-00
DATE: 2020 10 16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
J. Kingdon and P. Grbac, for the Crown
- and -
COLIN SHEPHERD
A. Marchetti, for the Defence
HEARD: September 21, 22, 23, 24, 2020, in Brampton
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
André J.
[1] ON December 10, 2015, at approximately 2:00 p.m., three males forced their way into a Mississauga residence after demanding “drugs or money”. They assaulted and stabbed two brothers in the residence. The males left the residence after a few minutes with one of them carrying a garbage bag which turned out to have had marijuana twigs while another had a cooler. The sole issue in this trial is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Colin Shepherd was one of the three males involved in the home invasion.
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
[2] Thirty-six year old Robert Vala, who admitted to selling about half a pound of marijuana per week in December 2015, was lying in bed at about 2:00 p.m. on December 10, 2015, when he heard a voice in his driveway saying, “cameras, cameras, cameras.” He looked out his window and saw three males. Mr. Vala walked to his back door to ask the men what they were doing. After he opened the door; the males rushed past him into the home. Mr. Vala ran into his house and screamed to his brother, Steven. Robert found himself grappling with one male who he identified as Mr. Shepherd. He testified that Mr. Shepherd had him in a headlock and repeatedly stabbed him on top of his head. A second male approached him and stabbed him under the left armpit with a knife.
[3] At one point the male identified as Mr. Shepherd picked up a broomstick and swung it at him. Robert grabbed the broomstick. Robert fell to the ground and one male repeatedly kicked him. He saw two males fighting with his brother, Steven. Robert then ran outside and called 911. He saw two males run out a side door of the residence. His brother chased the males and returned shortly after, carrying a suitcase. Soon after Steven collapsed on the driveway. The police arrived at their residence minutes later.
[4] Robert testified that Mr. Shepherd and himself grew up in the same neighbourhood. He had known Mr. Shepherd since he was twelve or thirteen years old. They were friends and Robert would see Mr. Shepherd every other day. They lived in the same neighbourhood for four to five years. Robert testified that prior to the incident, he had not seen Mr. Shepherd for approximately ten to fifteen years. He stated that Mr. Shepherd had a teardrop tattoo on his face, but he could not recall on which side. During his 911 call, Robert identified one of the males as “Colin” whom he had known from his neighbourhood.
[5] A police officer showed Robert two photo lineups on December 13, 2015. Robert identified Photo #6 in the second lineup as the photograph of Mr. Shepherd. Upon seeing the photograph, Robert stated:
Oh yeah, this fuckin’ asshole.
When asked if he recognized the person, Robert replied:
Oh yeah, I grew up with this piece of shit; same neighbourhood.
He stated further:
I grew up with him, I never liked him. I just, he grew up in my neighbourhood.
He further stated:
I was fighting with this guy personally. This is the guy that, he was holding me while the third guy ran up and stabbed me.
[6] The officer then asked him:
Okay. How sure are you on a 1 to 10?
[7] Robert replied:
Eleven.
[8] In cross-examination Robert testified that the tattoo was the giveaway. However, he added, “That’s not how I recognized him. I knew him since I was a teenager.”
[9] Asked about his relationship with Mr. Shepherd, Robert stated, that he didn’t like him. Of Mr. Shepherd, he testified, “he is a woman beater, a piece of scum”.
[10] Thirty-seven year old Steven Vala testified that three males entered the back door of his residence and “started fighting with us”. He stated that he was fighting two guys in the kitchen and dining room while Robert was fighting in the hallway. He tried to fend them off with a hockey stick. One male grabbed the stick. He fought the male. While doing so, another male stabbed him in the back. The male struck him a couple of times. He fell to the floor and was struck two more times. He also got kicked in the head. He then got up, walked out of the house and chased two of the males. He retrieved a suitcase they had dropped on the ground.
[11] Steven said he was five feet away when he saw Mr. Shepherd fighting with Robert in the hallway. “I just recognize his face”, Steven testified. He met Mr. Shepherd a couple times growing up. He had seen him in the neighbourhood park when Steven was fourteen to fifteen years old. “We would play sports in the park sometimes,” Steven added. He stated that he had last seen Mr. Shepherd “around 2010”. The three males were not wearing hats or masks.
[12] Steven testified that after the incident inside his home, he saw Mr. Shepherd jumping a fence at the back of his house.
[13] Steven was also shown photo lineups. He stated that the teardrop tattoo made Mr. Shepherd “distinctive”. He added that he recognized Mr. Shepherd before he was stabbed. He indicated that he had last seen Mr. Shepherd between 2008 and 2010. While waiting for an ambulance to arrive at his home, his brother and himself discussed the incident and the fact that one of the males had been Mr. Shepherd. He added that Mr. Shepherd and Robert had never gotten along in the past.
[14] Steven also testified that his home had twice been broken into. That caused them to install video surveillance cameras at his home. He concluded his evidence by noting that there was no chance of him being wrong about Mr. Shepherd being one of the males who had entered his home on December 13, 2015.
ARREST OF MR. SHEPHERD
[15] Sergeant Adam Holland arrested Mr. Shepherd on January 5, 2016. Mr. Shepherd had no shoes. The officer asked the owner of the residence to bring a pair of shoes for Mr. Shepherd. The owner brought back a pair of Nike sneakers for Mr. Shepherd. Sgt. Holland later seized the shoes and submitted it for forensic testing because he found that the shoes “were consistent” with that worn by the male who was captured on the Valas’ surveillance video running from the back of their residence.
[16] The officer conceded that there were no DNA or fingerprint evidence connecting Mr. Shepherd to the home invasion.
CROWN’S POSITION
[17] The Crown bears the burden of proof in this criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt as with all criminal cases. He relies on a number of cases for his submission that there is irrefutable evidence, both viva voce, surveillance and the contents of the 911 call, that establish Mr. Shepherd’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
DEFENCE POSITION
[18] Defence counsel submits that the identification evidence called by the Crown is severely flawed for the following reasons:
(1) The identification evidence is unreliable because Robert and Steven had not seen Mr. Shepherd for at least ten years before the home invasion, and possible collusion between the two;
(2) There is no DNA or fingerprint evidence linking Mr. Shepherd to the offence;
(3) The “shoe” evidence should be given little or no weight because a) there is no evidence it belonged to Mr. Shepherd and b) there is nothing distinctive or unusual about the shoes;
(4) The photo lineup was fatally flawed in that only one photo in the lineups had a male with a teardrop tattoo. Second, the police officer who conducted the lineup conceded that he violated the Peel Regional Police Force (PRPF) procedures when he compiled the photo lineups shown to Robert and Steven Vala.
ANALYSIS
[19] Whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Shepherd was one of the three men involved in the home invasion can only be determined by a consideration of the law and the facts.
THE LAW
[20] I will commence the analysis with a review of the cases on identification and recognition evidence.
[21] The Crown relies on R. v. Charles, 2016 ONCA 892, [2016] O.J. No. 6061, where at para. 50, the Ontario Court of Appeal makes a distinction between a case of recognition and one involving the identification of a complete stranger. In that case, a victim of a vicious stabbing identified a male with whom he had attended high school fourteen years earlier, as “Carl”. He could not recall the male’s last name. On another occasion he gave a different name for the stabber. In upholding the jury’s conviction of the appellants, the Court of Appeal found that the “inconsistencies and frailties in Mr. Pierre’s identification evidence” were “applicable due to his long recovery from serious injuries and his difficulty with the English language”. The Court of Appeal identified the fact that the witness mentioned the name “Carl” immediately after being attacked as a factor in assessing the identification evidence. The Court of Appeal also noted at para. 52 that while the photograph identification was imperfect, it was videotaped thereby giving the jury an opportunity of reviewing the videotapes as well as the witnesses’ viva voce evidence.
[22] In R. v. Campbell, 2017 ONCA 65, [2017] O.J. No. 380, two persons who wore hats and bandanas robbed a homeowner of a large sum of money in May 2011. In the ensuing trial the victim and another relative testified that the appellant, whom they knew as “Mack Truck” and who belonged to a group they used to hang out with, had perpetrated the robbery and had seen him two to three times a week between 2007 and 2010. The trial judge categorized this evidence as recognition evidence rather than identification of a stranger. The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of this evidence. It proceeded to note at para. 10 that:
This court has confirmed that “recognition evidence is merely a form of identification evidence” and, as such, “[t]he same concerns apply and the same caution must be taken in considering its reliability as in dealing with any other identification evidence”: R. v. Olliffe, 2015 ONCA 242, 322 C.C.C. (3d) 501, at para. 39. This court also noted in that paragraph, however, that “[t]he level of familiarity between the accused and the witness may serve to enhance the reliability of the evidence.” Unlike cases involving the identification of a stranger, the reliability of recognition evidence depends heavily on the extent of the previous acquaintanceship and the opportunity for observation during the incident: R. v. Miaponoose (1996), 1996 CanLII 1268 (ON CA), 30 O.R. (3d) 419 (C.A.), at p. 424, citing R. v. Smierciak (1946), 1946 CanLII 331 (ON CA), 87 C.C.C. 175, at p. 177. Recently, in R. v. Charles, 2016 ONCA 892, at paras. 50-51, this court noted the “critical difference” between recognition cases and cases involving identification by a witness of a complete stranger, and referred to the relevance of the “timeline of the identification narrative”. See also R. v. Peterpaul (2001), 2001 CanLII 24119 (ON CA), 52 O.R. (3d) 631 (C.A.), at p. 638.
[23] In R. v. Deeb, [2019] O.J. No. 5675, the appellant was convicted at trial of shooting the victim after he had gotten off a bus. The victim identified the shooter as someone he had known in high school but had not seen him for about five years. On appeal, the appellant submitted that the trial judge had failed to approach the evidence with the necessary caution given that this was an eyewitness identification case. The Court of Appeal noted the following at paras. 8 and 9:
[8] We also reject the argument that the trial judge put misplaced reliance on the honesty and confidence of Mr. Kay’s identification, rather than its reliability. The trial judge was acutely alive to the issue of the reliability of the identification, even though this was a recognition case. She appropriately considered whether Mr. Kay was credible and sincere in his identification of the appellant. During cross-examination, it was suggested to Mr. Kay that he had not been able to remember who had shot him when first shown a photo line-up, and that it was important to Mr. Kay that his son would be able “to put an identity, a face, to the person, a name to the person who caused this”. The trial judge treated this as a suggestion that “Mr. Kay was intent on falsely identifying [the appellant] as the shooter to give his son knowledge”. She rejected the suggestion. But after finding Mr. Kay credible and sincere, she went on to caution herself that such factors were a “poor measure of the accuracy of the identification”. And she further noted that even though a recognition witness may be in a better position than someone identifying a stranger, the need for caution still applied.
[9] A review of the trial judge’s reasons shows that she found the identification reliable based on: Mr. Kay’s past history with the appellant and the opportunity he had to see the appellant on the day of the shooting; the evidence of a witness who testified that he saw the shooter, who was wearing a hoodie and a blue bandanna, sit beside him on the bus, get off at the same stop as Mr. Kay, and point what he believed to be a firearm at a person on the street; certain circumstantial evidence that linked the appellant to the area of the shooting around the relevant time; and evidence that hoodies and bandannas were found in an apartment linked to the appellant when it was searched. The trial judge appropriately concluded that: “…I find that Mr. Kay was not only a credible witness but more importantly a reliable one … there is no danger of an honest but inaccurate identification of [the appellant] as the shooter”.
[24] In response to the submission that the trial judge gave insufficient attention to the five year gap between when the witness last saw the appellant and the day of the shooting, the Court of Appeal noted that:
[11] The trial judge was alive to and expressly referenced the five year gap. But she found that the quality and quantity of Mr. Kay’s past interactions with the appellant rendered his ability to recognize the appellant on the day of the shooting, for example, as a passenger on the bus, highly reliable. We add, as Crown counsel pointed out, that there was no suggestion of a change in appearance sufficient to undermine Mr. Kay’s ability to identify the appellant. Mr. Kay identified the appellant’s obviously adult photo as that of the shooter from a photo line-up shortly after the shooting.
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS
[25] Defence counsel submits that given the passage of time between when the Vala brothers last saw Mr. Shepherd before December 10, 2015, this case should be treated as one involving the identification of a stranger rather than a case of recognition.
[26] I disagree for the following reasons. While Robert testified that he had last seen Mr. Shepherd some ten years before the incident and Steven stated that he had last seen the accused between 2008 and 2010, in my view, “the quality and quantity” of their past interactions with Mr. Shepherd, as noted in Deeb, at para. 11, makes their evidence both credible and reliable.
[27] For example, Robert testified that Mr. Shepherd and himself had grown up in the same neighbourhood. He had known the accused since Mr. Shepherd was twelve or thirteen years old. The two had been friends and saw each other every other day and had lived in the same neighbourhood for four to five years. In other words, the two did not simply have a chance encounter or were not merely acquaintances.
[28] Steven’s testimony also confirms that Robert had a good knowledge of Mr. Shepherd. He said that the two had had a falling out over a girl. Steven stated that he had seen Mr. Shepherd in the neighbourhood park when Mr. Shepherd was fourteen or fifteen years old. They used to play sports in the park sometimes. Neither Robert or Steven was challenged on their testimony about their prior knowledge of Mr. Shepherd.
[29] Additionally, and as noted in Deeb, at para. 11, there is no suggestion of a change in appearance sufficient to undermine Robert and Steven’s ability to identify Mr. Shepherd.
[30] Defence counsel further challenges the identification evidence as insufficient based on the following factors:
(1) The incident was fast and fleeting and did not afford the brothers the opportunity to identify Mr. Shepherd.
(2) The possibility of tainting given the evidence that the brothers discussed the incident before speaking to the police.
(3) The problems with the photograph identification given the breaches of the PRPF’s policies on compiling a photo lineup and the fact that only one male in the lineup had a teardrop tattoo on his face.
(4) The “shoe” evidence should be afforded no weight given that a) its ownership is unknown and b) there was nothing unusual about it.
The Incident
[31] The incident within the residence lasted just a few minutes. Furthermore, it was a very stressful encounter. That is confirmed by the video evidence which shows a very agitated Robert while he was outside his residence calling 911. The first officer who arrived at the scene described Robert as having been “quite upset” and Steven having been “frantic”.
[32] That said, there are aspects of the incident that suggest that despite the relatively short time of the incident, the brothers had ample opportunity to have recognized Mr. Shepherd based on their prior knowledge of him.
[33] First, the incident occurred at 2:00 p.m. There is no evidence that the lights within the house were poor or inadequate.
[34] Second, none of the three males wore a hat, mask or facial covering.
[35] Third, Robert fought with Mr. Shepherd who was within inches of him. The two were face to face while they fought. Robert testified that Mr. Shepherd then held him in a headlock. He saw the tattoo on Mr. Shepherd’s face. Steven also testified that he was five feet away from Mr. Shepherd when he recognized him.
[36] Fourth, the brothers both testified that they had identified Mr. Shepherd during the incident and not some time afterwards. They were not shaken in cross-examination on this part of their testimony.
[37] Fifth, upon being arrested, Mr. Shepherd was given a pair of Nike sneakers, with a distinctive black and white colour scheme, which resembled that worn by the male identified as Mr. Shepherd. Defence counsel correctly submits that the video image of the fleeing male is not sufficiently clear to conclude that the sneakers worn by the male and that worn by Mr. Shepherd upon his arrest were one and the same. Furthermore, the sneakers worn by Mr. Shepherd had a red outline of the Nike logo on its side and that is not shown in the video. Additionally, there is no evidence that the sneakers belonged to Mr. Shepherd. Finally, there is no evidence that the sneakers are unique rather than ubiquitous.
[38] That said, defence counsel conceded that the sneakers worn by Mr. Shepherd post-arrest was “generally similar” to that worn by the fleeing male. The Crown describes it as “strikingly similar”. However, in my view, this evidence, relating to the shoes recovered following Mr. Shepherd’s arrest, should be afforded little weight in determining whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Shepherd was one of the robbers.
Possible Tainting
[39] Defence counsel identifies three separate instances of tainting that he submits, make the identification evidence unreliable. They are:
(1) Robert and Steven talked about Mr. Shepherd being involved while they waited for the ambulance.
(2) Robert could not give Colin’s last name when he called 911. After he talked to Steven, he became sure that one of the robbers was Colin Shepherd.
(3) The photo identification lineups were tainted because only one photograph showed the picture of a male with a teardrop tattoo under his eye.
Discussion Before Arrival of Ambulance
[40] Steven Vala testified that Robert and himself discussed who was involved in the robbery and spoke about Mr. Shepherd. I accept Robert’s testimony that he identified Mr. Shepherd in the house during the physical interaction with him because Robert stated in his 911 call, before he had an opportunity to speak to his brother, that Colin, who had lived in his neighbourhood, was involved in the robbery.
[41] Defence counsel submits that during the 911 call, Robert was unsure whether Mr. Shepherd was involved because he told the dispatcher that, “I think it was a guy named Colin”. However, before making this statement, Robert told the dispatcher that, “I know one of them” and he then identified the male as “Colin”. To that extent, I find that his identification of the accused as being involved in the robbery was not tainted by any conversation he had with Steven.
[42] There was other evidence of possible tainting in this trial. Robert, who denied that he had discussed the incident with his brother, testified that the two had spent the night in the same hospital room following the incident. He testified that he had probably spoken to his brother the day following the incident and that they were “probably” affirming that it was Mr. Shepherd who stabbed him. On the other hand, Steven denied speaking to his brother in the hospital about the incident. He testified that Robert had been discharged from the hospital after he was “stitched up” on the same day he had been admitted and that the two were never placed in the same room. Based on this conflicting evidence, I am unable to conclude that the evidence of either Robert and Steven was tainted by information each received from the other.
Photograph Identification Lineups
[43] Defence counsel submits that the photo lineups conducted by Cst. Eric Malone is fatally flawed and therefore should be afforded little or no weight. He identifies the following irregularities in the creation and administration of the photo lineups:
(1) Cst. Malone’s failure to comply with the PRPF’s directive to ensure that impartial photo lineups are conducted in accordance with Canadian jurisprudence. These failures include:
i. The directive required him, in compiling the lineup, to compare each subsequent picture to the previous one for similarity. Rather than following this directive, the officer testified that he had simply taken the first twelve photographs out of the 501 results he received from the police’s database;
ii. Only one photograph, that of Mr. Shepherd, had a teardrop tattoo. This photograph made Mr. Shepherd stick out of the lineup like a sore thumb. Cst. Malone violated the PRPF’s directive which required the photo lineup to have a relatively consistent appearance with respect to any unique or unusual features of the suspect, in particular, tattoos.
[44] Defence counsel also identified the following deficiencies in the photo lineup completed by Steven Vala:
(1) The photograph envelopes were in the view of the witness at the beginning of the interview.
(2) The photograph envelopes completed by the witness were not taken out of the witness’ sight after they were shown to the witness but were left on the table in front of the witness.
(3) The witness was told how many photographs he would view.
(4) The photo lineup was conducted by Cst. Malone, who was involved in the investigation.
(5) The photo lineup was conducted by Cst. Malone, who knew who the suspect was.
(6) Any deviation from the procedure mandated by the PRPF directive had to be approved by a Supervisor. Cst. Malone testified that he did not recall and had no notation that he obtained any approval from a Supervisor to deviate from the procedure mandated by the directive.
[45] Defence counsel submits that these glaring deficiencies exacerbate the inherent frailties of eyewitness identification evidence that have been highlighted in many cases: see R. v. Miaponoose (1996), 1996 CanLII 1268 (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 445 (Ont. C.A.), at 451; R. v. A.(F.) (2004), 2004 CanLII 10491 (ON CA), 183 C.C.C. (3d) 518 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 39; R. v. Tat, (1997), 1997 CanLII 2234 (ON CA), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 99-100; R. v. Goran, 2008 ONCA 195, O.A.C. 283 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 19; R. v. Nikolovski, 1996 CanLII 158 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197, at pp. 1209-10; R. v. Burke, 1996 CanLII 229 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474, at p. 498.
[46] I agree with defence counsel that Cst. Malone did not follow the PRPF’s directives regarding the compilation of the photo lineups. However, there is no evidence that the descriptors that the officer relied on to compile the lineups included a teardrop tattoo. Furthermore, the officer advised both Robert and Steven that the robbers may or may not be shown in the lineups. Cst. Malone also had each witness shuffle the photographs before proceeding to examine them one at a time. The officer gave the witnesses one envelope at a time. Additionally, the videos of the lineups show that the officer turned away while Robert, then Steven, looked at the photographs in the envelopes given to them.
[47] While, in Steven’s case, the envelopes were in his view at the beginning of the interview or were not taken out of his sight after he had viewed the photographs within, there is no evidence that he viewed the photographs prior to the photo lineup. Additionally, while Cst. Malone’s decision to conduct the photo lineups may have violated the PRPF policies, there is no evidence that this violation played any role in Steven’s selection of the photograph in the first envelope as that of Mr. Shepherd. Indeed, the video of the photo lineup showed that Cst. Malone turned away when selected Steven Vala pulled the photographs from the envelopes. For these reasons, I cannot conclude that any deviation from the PRPF’s policies by Cst. Malone played a role in Steven’s identification of Mr. Shepherd’s photograph.
[48] Additionally, I am unsure of the extent to which the tattoo caused either witness to select Mr. Shepherd’s photograph. Robert testified that the tattoo was a “giveaway” but proceeded to note that, “That’s not how I recognized him. I knew him since I was a teenager”. He also testified that he scuffled with Mr. Shepherd “for a minute or so” and “recognized him instantly”.
[49] Furthermore, Robert and Steven had no hesitation or reservation in identifying the photograph of Mr. Shepherd. Robert stated, following his identification of Mr. Shepherd’s photograph, “I grew up with this piece of shit, same neighbourhood.” He repeated that “I grew up with him. I never liked him. I grew up, he grew up in my neighbourhood”.
[50] When asked how sure he was of the person he had identified, on a scale of one to ten, Robert replied “eleven”.
[51] Steven picked out the first photograph in the second lineup shown to him as that of Mr. Shepherd. When asked, “And this is the guy you were friends with, grew up with so to speak?” Steven replied: “Yeah, he wasn’t the same age as me. I just, know who he is through the area and you know.”
[52] Cst. Malone then asked, “And what is it about him you recognize?” Steven replied, “Oh I, I know his hair, his face yeah.” He later added, “… I know his sister and his dogs. I know his grandma, his other sister.”
[53] While I am mindful that the tattoo could have subconsciously played a role in Robert and Steven’s identification of Mr. Shepherd in the photo lineups, neither explained their recognition of Mr. Shepherd’s photograph on the basis of the tattoo. Rather, both explained their decision on the basis of having known Mr. Shepherd in their neighbourhood.
[54] In my view, while there were problems in the compilation of the photograph identification lineups, both Robert and Steven, without prompting, equivocation or hesitation, identified Mr. Shepherd as one of the three males involved in the December 10, 2015, home invasion.
MOTIVE TO FABRICATE
[55] Defence counsel submits that Robert’s dislike of Mr. Shepherd may have played a role in his identification of Mr. Shepherd as one of the three robbers and raises a reasonable doubt about the evidence implicating him in the robbery.
[56] Robert’s use of foul language when he identified Mr. Shepherd’s photograph clearly reveals that he did not like Mr. Shepherd. Steven also testified that the two had had issues over a girl years previously.
[57] However, in my view, the circumstances surrounding the incident do not support a conclusion that Robert’s antipathy towards Mr. Shepherd may have played any role in his identification of Mr. Shepherd as one of the three robbers. Robert testified that he had not seen Mr. Shepherd for at least ten years, maybe more. He was caught off guard when the three men rushed into his home. The altercation within the home lasted two to three minutes. Robert called 911 even before two of the robbers had ran out the side of the home. It is difficult to conclude that within such a compressed time period, Robert would have decided to implicate Mr. Shepherd, with whom he had had no contact for at least ten years, in this robbery.
CONCLUSION
[58] Based on the evidence of Robert and Steven Vale, the surveillance video evidence, Robert’s 911 call and the photo lineup identification evidence, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Shepherd was one of the three males involved in the home invasion. I find as a fact that he fought with Robert and struck him repeatedly on top of his head. I also find that one of his accomplices stabbed Robert in the side while the same male or another, stabbed Steven multiple times in the back.
[59] I therefore find Mr. Shepherd guilty of robbing Robert Vala (Count 1), of robbing Steven Vala (Count 2) and of wounding Robert Vala (Count 3). I also find Mr. Shepherd guilty of wounding Steven Vala, by being a party to that offence, pursuant to s. 21(2) of the Code.
Released: October 16, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-1737-00
DATE: 2020 10 16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
COLIN SHEPHERD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
André J.
Released: October 16, 2020