Court File and Parties
Court File No. CR-21-00000864-0000 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
ISREAL BRATHWAITE
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J. STRIBOPOULOS
on November 23, 2022, at BRAMPTON, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
I. Horic Counsel for the Crown
A. Abbey Counsel for Isreal Brathwaite
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Reasons for Judgment - Stribopoulos, J. Page 1
Transcript Ordered:
Transcript Completed:
Ordering Party Notified:
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2022
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T
STRIBOPOULOS, J. (Orally):
Just past midnight on May 13, 2020, Khorram Syed, while he sat in his car at a Tim Hortons parking lot near the western border of Mississauga, was robbed at gunpoint by four assailants. The robbers took Mr. Syed's jacket and wallet. They also took his iPhone, which he either had in his jacket pocket or inside the car. Finally, the four robbers drove off in his car, a 2020 BMW sedan. Mr. Syed also had some other jackets in his car and a few hundred dollars in the centre console.
About ten hours after the robbery in the parking lot of a townhouse complex in Malton, near Mississauga's eastern border, the police found the accused, Isreal Brathwaite, asleep in Mr. Syed's stolen car. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Brathwaite was carrying a loaded handgun, a prohibited firearm, hidden in his pants.
At the commencements of his trial, Mr. Brathwaite pleaded guilty to charges that he possessed a loaded prohibited firearm, being an occupant of the vehicle in which he knew there was a firearm, and breaching a Youth Criminal Justice Act weapons prohibition and probation order. However, Mr. Brathwaite pleaded not guilty to the charges that he committed robbery with a firearm, and wearing a mask while committing an indictable offence.
As a result, Mr. Brathwaite's trial proceeded before me on those charges and focused on a single issue: whether he was one of the four assailants who participated in the armed robbery. For Mr. Brathwaite to be found guilty, the Crown must prove that he was beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case against Mr. Brathwaite is entirely circumstantial. As a result, it is sensible to begin by remembering the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance on how triers of fact are to assess the evidence in such cases.
In Villaroman, the Supreme Court explained that in a case in which proof of one or more elements of the offence depends exclusively or mainly on circumstantial evidence, for the trier of fact to return a guilty verdict, an inference of guilt must be the only reasonable inference the evidence permits: see R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 30.
Accordingly, the trier of fact must consider other plausible theories and reasonable possibilities inconsistent with guilt that arise from the evidence or a lack of evidence: Villaroman, at paras. 30, 35-37. The Crown's case must negate such alternative interpretations of the circumstantial evidence for the accused to be found guilty: Villaroman, at para. 37. However, the Crown is not required to negate "every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused": R. v. Bagshaw, 1971 CanLII 13 (SCC), 1972 S.C.R. 2, at p. 8; see also Villaroman, at para. 37. Other plausible theories or reasonable possibilities "must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation": Villaroman, at para. 37.
In Villaroman, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the distinction between what constitutes a "plausible theory" and what amounts to "speculation" is not always clear. Nevertheless, it explained that the "basic question" for the trier of fact "is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty": Villaroman, at para. 38. Stated differently, it explained the dividing line between plausible theories and speculation by noting "that to justify a conviction, the circumstantial evidence, assessed in light of human experience, should be such that it excludes any other reasonable alternative": Villaroman, at para. 41.
The Supreme Court cautioned that the trier of fact "should not act on alternative interpretations of the circumstances that it considers to be unreasonable and that alternative inferences must be reasonable, not just possible": Villaroman, at para. 42.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court observed "that it is fundamentally for the trier of fact to draw the line in each case that separates reasonable doubt from speculation": Villaroman, at para. 71.
When assessing circumstantial evidence and deciding whether it furnishes a reasonable inference of guilt, the trier of fact must guard against considering individual items of evidence separately and in isolation. Instead, such evidence must be viewed as a whole and weighed cumulatively to decide whether it only supports a reasonable inference of guilt and excludes other alternative and plausible explanations: see R. v. Hudson, 2021 ONCA 772, 158 O.R. (3d) 589, at para. 70; R. v. Gibson, 2021 ONCA 530, 157 O.R. (3d) 597, at paras. 78-79.
Mindful of these principles, I turn to consider the evidence at trial. Much of the evidence was largely uncontested, except for the testimony of Ms. Myers, who offered an alibi for Mr. Brathwaite.
Mr. Syed was sitting in his car drinking a coffee, smoking a cigarette, and reading and drafting emails on his phone when two masked assailants accosted him. Given the time of year and because he was smoking, Mr. Syed had rolled down the two front windows of his car. With his attention focused squarely on his phone, Mr. Syed did not notice his assailants approaching his vehicle.
Mr. Syed was surprised by one of the assailants, who reached into his car through the driver's window, grabbed him by his coat collar with one hand, and pressed a handgun that he was holding in his other hand into Mr. Sayed's chest. While that was happening, a second assailant pointed a firearm through the open front passenger window at Mr. Syed's head. The two assailants ordered Mr. Syed out of his car, and he understandably immediately complied.
As he stood next to his car, the assailant who confronted him through the open driver's window stood in front of Mr. Syed while he held a handgun to his chest. Next, the second assailant came around the vehicle and stood to Mr. Syed's right, with his gun pressed against the side of Mr. Syed's head. After that, two other assailants emerged from some nearby bushes, and came up behind Mr. Syed.
While the first two assailants kept their handguns pressed up against Mr. Syed's chest and head, the two behind him emptied his pockets and removed his jacket. After that, the four assailants entered Mr. Syed's car and drove off.
Throughout this brief ordeal, somewhat remarkably, Mr. Syed remained relatively calm. He did not resist the robbers and readily surrendered his property to them.
Mr. Syed's description of the assailants is of critical importance. He testified that all four were black males and estimated that they were all around 25 years of age.
Mr. Syed described the robber who stuck a handgun through his driver's side window and pressed it into his chest once he was out of his car. He estimated this assailant's height as "5'10" to 5'11"-ish," and described him as having a "medium build." The man wore a blue hoodie-style sweatshirt, and the hood was up over his head. He testified the hoodie's shade of blue was consistent with that of the Zoom icon, a darker shade of blue. Mr. Syed did not believe the hoodie had any logos or markings on it. This assailant wore a white N95 mask and had white/yellowish surgical gloves on both of his hands. Finally, this robber wore dark blue or black pants, but Mr. Syed could not say much more about them. For example, he could not recall if they were sweatpants or jeans. He explained that his focus was mainly on the gun that the man kept pressed into his chest.
Mr. Syed described the first assailant's handgun. He testified that it was a black handgun, but not a revolver. He specifically recalled seeing a "goldish" and "bronzish" colour around the tip of its barrel. Mr. Syed described the firearm as smaller than the one carried by police and testified that it seemed "lightish" in weight.
When he saw a photograph of a gun on the news the next day associated with the story about the robbery, Mr. Syed testified that he was "100 per cent sure" it was the same gun. (I note, parenthetically, that the police issued a press release after Mr. Brathwaite's arrest the following day, which included a photograph of the handgun police found on him, along with the ammunition contained within it.)
Mr. Syed also described the second assailant, who pointed a firearm at him through the front passenger window and then pressed his gun to the side of Mr. Syed's head once he was outside the car. He testified that this man was 5'11" to six feet tall, that he also had a "medium build," but described him as "a bit bulkier" than the first man. He wore a grey hoodie sweatshirt, and the hood was up over his head. As a result, Mr. Syed could not describe his hairstyle. The hoodie did not have a logo or markings on it. This individual also wore darker pants that were either blue or black. In addition, this assailant wore a blue surgical mask and blue latex gloves on both hands.
Mr. Syed described the gun that the second robber carried. He testified it was a black handgun, but not a revolver, and it looked like the first assailant's weapon. However, Mr. Syed acknowledged not getting as good a look at this individual's firearm because the second assailant was standing to his side and pressing his gun to the side of Mr. Syed's head. At the same time, Mr. Syed's primary focus was on the weapon that the first assailant, standing directly in front of him, was pressing into his chest.
Mr. Syed did not have as good an opportunity to observe the two robbers who emerged from the nearby bushes and came up behind him to empty his pockets and remove his jacket. Understandably, his attention was on the two men with the firearms.
Nevertheless, Mr. Syed still managed to make some useful observations of the two men who emerged from the bushes and came up behind him.
Mr. Syed testified that one of them was about his height. Mr. Syed is 5'7" to 5'8". He described this assailant as a "little chubbier." He could not say whether this robber wore a mask or gloves. Further, although he thought this individual was wearing a grey hoodie, he could not be sure he was.
Finally, Mr. Syed described the second individual who emerged from the bushes as between 5'6" to 5'10". It appears that this was the assailant who Mr. Syed had an opportunity to observe the least. For example, he did not describe this robber’s build. He could also not say whether he wore a mask or gloves.
Mr. Syed testified that the entire ordeal from when the first assailant reached into his driver's side window to the four men driving off in his car, took "probably around two minutes."
Throughout a careful and probing cross-examination, Mr. Syed remained consistent in his description of the four robbers. Explicitly asked whether any of the assailants could have been wearing green, Mr. Syed was insistent that he did not recall seeing any of them wearing any clothing of that colour. The robbers with the handguns, he maintained, wore blue and grey hoodies, not green.
Mr. Syed conceded that when he described the four assailants to the police, shortly after the robbery, the description he provided for the tallest assailant, the one who approached from the front passenger window, was "approximately 5'11". However, he testified that it was just an approximation, and the person could have been shorter or taller by an inch or two.
Finally, when it came to the race of the four robbers, all Mr. Syed was prepared to say was that they were "Black." Further, he testified that their skin shading did not vary between them, and that none appeared to have what he would describe as either a lighter or darker skin tone.
Approximately two and a half hours after the robbery, at 2:26 a.m. on May 13, 2020, Constable Hussain, while on routine traffic patrol, observed a black BMW sedan stopped in the southbound left turn lane on Hurontario Street at Dundas Street in the City of Mississauga. The rear licence plate on the car was CCVC 591. When police found Mr. Brathwaite asleep in Mr. Syed's car later that morning, it had the same licence plate attached at the rear.
Constable Hussain queried the licence plate number, which came back as belonging to a four-door white Honda. As a result, Constable Hussain decided he would stop the vehicle to investigate why it had a plate that did not belong to it. However, before doing so, Constable Hussain pulled up next to the BMW to see the occupants before initiating a traffic stop. He did that in case the car fled when he signaled it to pull over.
When Constable Hussain pulled up next to the car, he looked into it through the front passenger side window and saw the occupants for just two or three seconds. He testified that two people were inside the car, a driver and a front passenger. They both looked towards Constable Hussain when he looked at them. The officer testified that he did not see anyone in the back seat. According to Constable Hussain, both occupants were black men. Each wore a surgical mask. Shortly afterward, in his police notebook, Constable Hussain noted, "male black, shaved heads, wearing surgical masks." In his notation, Constable Hussain used the word, "male" in the singular, but the word "heads" in the plural. Given that notation and the passage of over two and a half years since he made these observations, Constable Hussain could not recall whether both men had shaved heads or if only one did.
When the light changed colour, the BMW turned left to head eastbound on Dundas Street. Constable Hussain followed behind it and signaled for it to stop. However, the car continued driving. Following police protocol, Constable Hussain did not pursue it.
At approximately 10:00 a.m. that morning the police gained access to data from the GPS tracker installed in the vehicle by BMW. Initially, the GPS tracker indicated the car was in the area of the Westwood Mall in Malton. However, when they attended in that area, the police could not locate the vehicle. A short time later, the GPS tracker indicated the car was in a different location in Malton. Given this, the police surmised the BMW was in transit.
Eventually, at approximately 10:40 a.m., the police located the stolen BMW parked at 3430 Brandon Gate Drive in the Malton area of Mississauga. Police found it backed into a parking space in the visitor’s parking spot at a townhouse complex at that location. Mr. Brathwaite was asleep in the reclined driver seat of the vehicle when the police approached the car and arrested him. There was no one else in the car.
Police did not locate any of the items of any value that Mr. Syed reported having in the car when it was stolen. For example, police did not find Mr. Syed's iPhone, cash, wallet or jacket in the car. Nor were any hoodies or masks found in the BMW, including the blue and grey hoodies and the N95 and blue surgical masks worn by the two robbers who brandished the handguns.
However, the police found a white latex glove on the floor just in front of the driver's seat. Mr. Syed testified that that glove did not belong to him. Recall that he testified that the robber who first approached him wore white/yellowish latex gloves. The police submitted that glove for DNA analysis, but that did not yield any usable results.
When the police arrested Mr. Brathwaite, he was wearing a green track suit. The top portion of the track suit had a zipper and a hood. Beneath the hoodie he was wearing a white T-shirt. Mr. Brathwaite did not have a mask when arrested. However, he was wearing a black latex glove on his left hand and a blue one on his right hand.
When police searched Mr. Brathwaite more carefully back at the station, they discovered he was wearing two pairs of track pants. In the inner track pants’ pocket, they located a loaded prohibited handgun. It was a 40 caliber semi-automatic Polymer80, model PF950SC handgun without a serial number. The base of the gun appears constructed from a plastic composite material, whereas the slide and barrel are metal. The handgun is smaller than that used by police and is considered a “compact”. As a result, it is lighter in weight than an ordinary handgun.
Notably, the firearm is entirely black, nothing gold or brown forms part of the handgun, unlike the gun described by Mr. Syed. That said, in the photo that police issued, along with a press release after Mr. Brathwaite's arrest, the firearm and its ammunition were pictured. The bullets had a gold colour casing and the projectiles within them appeared copper.
At the time of his arrest, Mr. Brathwaite had a phone in his possession that police seized. However, the Crown did not adduce any evidence, for example, cell phone tower records, to show where Mr. Brathwaite's phone was at the time of the robbery or afterwards.
At the time of the robbery, Mr. Brathwaite would have been 19 years old. The only evidence concerning his height came from the alibi witness, Ms. Myers. She testified she knew Mr. Brathwaite through her boyfriend, Mathew Stewart. Ms. Myers testified that Mr. Stewart is 6'2" and Mr. Brathwaite is taller than him. As a result, she estimated that Mr. Brathwaite is 6'3" or 6'4". Having seen Mr. Brathwaite in court throughout the trial, especially whenever he stood in the prisoner's box when remanded each day of the trial, that estimate appears consistent with my observations of him.
Finally, based on the video recording and still images of Mr. Brathwaite from the booking area of 12 Division on the morning of his arrest and my observations of him throughout the trial, I would describe him as a lighter skinned Black person.
That represents a summary of all the evidence the court has before it, relevant to the issue of identity, except for Ms. Myers' testimony.
Ms. Myers testified as an alibi witness. According to her, on the evening of May 12, 2020, Mr. Brathwaite attended her mother's residence at around 9:00 p.m. At the time, her mother was living in a townhouse at 3430 Brandon Gate Drive.
She testified that she did not know Mr. Brathwaite that well, that he was a friend of her boyfriend, Mr. Stewart. She testified that he came over that night, at her boyfriend's request, for her to braid his hair, something she had done a few times for other people, and that she was hoping to take up as a way of making money.
By then, Ms. Myers testified that her mother and her siblings were all asleep. Mr. Brathwaite arrived with Mr. Stewart, and they went upstairs to a spare room where the two young men were smoking marihuana and drinking. After about an hour, Mr. Stewart left. He said he was going out with friends. Mr. Brathwaite and Ms. Myers remained at her mother's house, and she began the long and tedious process of braiding his hair.
According to Ms. Myers, that was very time-consuming because she had to remove Mr. Brathwaite's existing braids and comb out his matted and knotted hair. They took several breaks, during which she used the bathroom because she was pregnant at the time, while Mr. Brathwaite smoked marihuana with the sliding door to the spare room open to air out the smoke.
Ms. Myers testified that it took four to five hours to braid Mr. Brathwaite's hair. She estimated finishing around 3:00 a.m. when Mr. Stewart returned. Afterwards, she laid down in another room while Mr. Stewart and Mr. Brathwaite stayed in the spare room, where she believed they continued drinking and smoking marihuana.
Ms. Myers testified that eventually the two men came into the room where she was trying to sleep, and Mr. Stewart asked if Mr. Brathwaite could stay over, given how late it was. However, she refused because her mother did not know Mr. Brathwaite, and she would not be okay with him sleeping over. As a result, Mr. Brathwaite left her mother's residence after that.
The next day Ms. Myers' mother woke her up because there was a big commotion outside, with the police present, and word had spread through their complex that police had arrested a boy in a stolen car. Shortly afterwards, Ms. Myers realized that the person arrested was Mr. Brathwaite. She read a story about his arrest, which referred to his involvement in a gunpoint robbery the night she was with him. Despite this, she did not go to the police to advise them that Mr. Brathwaite could not be involved in the robbery as he was with her at the time.
By way of explanation for not going to the police, Ms. Myers testified that her pregnancy was high risk and that she had a lot going on at the time. She acknowledged knowing what an “alibi” is but insisted that she only realized that she could potentially be an alibi witness for Mr. Brathwaite after defence counsel contacted her sometime in June 2021.
With all the evidence now summarized, I turn to its analysis.
I will begin with Ms. Myers' evidence. If I believe her, I must find Mr. Brathwaite not guilty of counts 1 and 2, the charges relating to the robbery of Mr. Syed. According to her evidence, Mr. Brathwaite was with her on the other side of Mississauga when the assailants were accosting Mr. Syed and taking his belongings and car at gunpoint. Therefore, if true, he cannot be one of the four assailants who perpetrated the armed robbery.
Having given her evidence careful consideration, I cannot say that I believe Ms. Myers. I have two principal difficulties with her evidence that prevent me from accepting it. First, on her account, she knew relatively early on that Mr. Brathwaite was innocent of the robbery for which he was arrested and charged. She even learned he was in custody at some point because of those charges. Yet, despite this, Ms. Myers did not contact the police to tell them what she knew over the following 13 months. Ms. Myers only came forward after speaking with Mr. Abbey in June of 2021. And, even after that, she was far from pro-active in making herself available for a police interview.
Second, Ms. Myers has lied to the police in the past. I appreciate that that was in the context of allegations of domestic violence against Mr. Stewart, with her initially reporting that he assaulted her and broke her nose and retracting that allegation later. Before this court, she maintained that Mr. Stewart did not assault her and gave a rather unbelievable account of how she tripped and broke her nose. Although the context is very different, to be sure, Ms. Myers' ability to lie, at least to the police, and potentially to this court, does not reflect positively on her credibility as a witness.
For these reasons, I cannot say that I believe Ms. Myers. Nevertheless, there is absolutely no basis to suggest that this was a concocted alibi and that my disbelief of her evidence in any way adds weight to the Crown's case against Mr. Brathwaite.
I turn next to the balance of the evidence at trial, mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada's instruction from Villaroman concerning assessing circumstantial evidence.
On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Horic submits that the court should be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Brathwaite was one of the four people who robbed Mr. Syed at gunpoint. In making that submission, he emphasizes that Mr. Brathwaite was found in Mr. Syed's stolen BMW only slightly more than 10 hours after the robbery. Further and critically, he argues Mr. Brathwaite had a firearm that closely matches the description of the handguns used by two of the assailants during the robbery.
That combination of evidence, Mr. Horic submits, supports only one reasonable inference, that Mr. Brathwaite was one of the four assailants who robbed Mr. Syed at gunpoint just after midnight on May 13, 2020.
Given that Mr. Brathwaite had possession of the stolen car a short time after the robbery and a handgun like those Mr. Syed described the assailants brandishing, a reasonable inference is indeed available, that he was one of the four robbers. Nevertheless, other evidence at this trial makes that inference less than irresistible. That includes the following:
• Mr. Syed told police the tallest assailant was 5'11" and Mr. Brathwaite is at least 6'3".
• Mr. Brathwaite is a noticeably light-skinned black person, whereas Mr. Syed did not describe any of the four assailants in that way.
• At the time of his arrest, Mr. Brathwaite had a considerable amount of hair on his head, although styled in tight cornrows. Someone viewing him at that time, even through a car window and at night, would be unlikely to describe him as having a "shaved head."
• When arrested, Mr. Brathwaite was wearing a green hoodie, not a blue or grey one, like the two assailants whose clothing Mr. Syed described who brandished the handguns. Further, the police did not locate either a blue or grey hoodie in the stolen car after Mr. Brathwaite's arrest. Mr. Syed was relatively confident that none of the assailants was wearing green.
• At the time of his arrest, Mr. Brathwaite did not have a mask in his possession, and police did not locate any inside the BMW when they searched it.
• All the valuables taken during the robbery were missing from the car, Mr. Syed's iPhone, the cash, the wallet with his identification and credit cards, and his jacket. In addition, there was no suggestion that Mr. Brathwaite had any of these items in his possession or that he had any money on him when arrested.
• The handgun Mr. Brathwaite had was entirely black. It did not have any gold or brown visible on it, unlike the gun described by Mr. Syed.
• Although Mr. Brathwaite was wearing latex gloves, one black, the other blue, he was not wearing white/yellowish latex gloves, and he was not wearing blue latex gloves on both hands. Although police located a white/yellowish latex glove in the car, no DNA results served to link Mr. Brathwaite to it.
On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Horic argues that none of these facts, all somewhat incongruent with Mr. Brathwaite's involvement, is necessarily indicative of his innocence.
First, Mr. Syed provided an approximation of the tallest assailant's height. In the circumstances, he could easily have made a mistake, a few inches either way.
Second, Constable Hussain observed the occupants of the BMW at night, through his window and the passenger window of the BMW. He only peered into the car for two to three seconds. In these circumstances, the officer might have mistaken Mr. Brathwaite's cornrows as a shaved head, especially only having viewed him momentarily in profile. The officer was also far from confident that both occupants had shaved heads.
Third, in the ten hours between the robbery and his arrest, Mr. Brathwaite could have easily disposed of much of the stolen property, or it could have been taken away by the other assailants.
Fourth, after the robbery and before his arrest, Mr. Brathwaite could have changed his clothes and disposed of the mask and gloves he wore during the robbery. If he were one of the robbers, he would likely have every reason to do so.
Finally, Mr. Syed could be unconsciously transplanting the colour of the ammunition from the photo police released of the gun and the bullets to his recollection of the gun's appearance.
I agree with Mr. Horic, that these potential explanations for aspects of the evidence that appear inconsistent with Mr. Brathwaite being one of the robbers are all entirely possible.
Nevertheless, after considering all the evidence cumulatively, as required, I remain less than sure that Mr. Brathwaite was one of the four persons who robbed Mr. Sayed shortly after midnight on May 13, 2020.
Ultimately, when I consider all the evidence together, it fails to negate a reasonable alternative inference: that Mr. Brathwaite knew at least one of the robbers and came into possession of the stolen car sometime after the robbery.
If that is the case, it means Mr. Brathwaite moves in the same circles as the assailants. Individuals who carried out a gunpoint robbery. It would not be entirely surprising to find that someone well-acquainted with the assailants might also be the type of person who would carry a loaded firearm.
Sadly, as the nightly news reminds us, handguns have been a plague in our community for some time now. Far too many young men like Mr. Brathwaite inexplicably seem to have an insatiable desire to carry them, despite the dangers they pose and the potential risk of lengthy terms of imprisonment that go along with being caught with one.
In the end, given all the evidence, here I include Ms. Myers alibi testimony, along with an absence of evidence, here I am thinking of the lack of any information concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Brathwaite's cell phone on the morning in question, I have a reasonable doubt that he was one of the four assailants who committed the robbery.
Ultimately, I simply cannot be sure that Mr. Brathwaite did not come into possession of the stolen BMW at some point in time after the robbery.
For all these reasons Mr. Brathwaite is found not guilty of counts 1 and 2, the charges concerning the robbery of Mr. Syed.
However, given the evidence, along with the Agreed Statement of Facts that became Exhibit 16 at trial, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that on May 13, 2020, Mr. Brathwaite possessed a loaded prohibited firearm, contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code; that he was an occupant of a motor vehicle knowing that there was a firearm in it, contrary to s. 94(1) of the Criminal Code; and that by possessing that firearm, he breached a Youth Criminal Justice Act weapons prohibition order and a probation order to which he was subject at the time, contrary, respectively, to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code, and s. 137 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Accordingly, Mr. Brathwaite is found guilty of count 6, 7, 8 and 9.
In summary, Mr. Brathwaite is found not guilty of counts 1 and 2, but guilty of counts 6, 7, 8, and 9. Counts 3, 4, and 5 were previously withdrawn at the request of the Crown.
...WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED
FORM 3
Certificate of Transcript
Evidence Act, subsection 5(2)
I, Helena Tsapoitis-Barbesin, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. Isreal Brathwaite in the Superior Court of Justice, held at 7765 Hurontario Street, Brampton, Ontario, taken from Recording No. 3199_308_20221123_093613__30_STRIBOJ.dcr, dated November 23, 2022 which has been certified in Form 1 by M. Dhir.
Date (Authorized Transcriptionist)
Helena Tsapoitis-Barbesin
ACT ID# 2372561617
416-889-6054
Transcriptsontario.ca
A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.
*This certification does not apply to the Reasons for Judgment which were judicially edited.