At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit two accused for trial on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, careless use of firearm, weapons dangerous, and unauthorized possession of firearm arising from a shooting incident outside a nightclub in Scarborough.
The accused challenged the sufficiency of identification evidence.
The court found that while identification evidence was frail and contained material inconsistencies, it was sufficient to warrant committal for trial on the low threshold applicable at the preliminary inquiry stage.
The court distinguished between cases of weak identification, which may still warrant committal, and cases where identification is so contradictory as to not constitute identification at all.