The appellants were convicted of armed robbery, use of a firearm, and break and enter.
The trial judge erred by admitting police officers' opinion evidence on videotape identification without a voir dire and by using the break and enter evidence as similar fact evidence for the robbery charges.
The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions using the curative proviso in s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the proviso was properly applied to the break and enter conviction because the trial judge made an independent identification.
However, the proviso could not save the robbery convictions for one appellant, as the remaining circumstantial evidence was not overwhelming.
The other appellant's appeal was dismissed because the admissible circumstantial evidence against him on the robbery charges was overwhelming.
