R. v. B.S.B.

(Airdrie P.C. - Indecent Act). SB was charged with "indecent act" in relation to an allegation that occurred in a parking lot. The case against SB was based on the evidence of a single eyewitness who, on the basis of a disclosure review, was assessed by SB's criminal defence lawyer to have only had a fleeting glance opportunity to identify the accused.  "Fleeting glance" identification occurs when a witness does not have opportunity to make a correct identification. SB's Calgary criminal lawyer tried to resolve the case prior to trial but could not, so a "not guilty" plea was entered and a trial date set. 

At trial, the Prosecution's witness was seated in the lobby at the Airdrie Courthouse when SB entered and walked in plain view. The witness could not identify the accused. As a result, the Prosecutor withdrew the charge on the day of trial. 

Sometimes trial is the only option to avoiding a criminal record. Identification is one the essential elements of any criminal offence, and must be proven correctly, beyond a reasonable doubt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is not proof based on sympathy or prejudice.  It is also not proof to absolute certainty; rather, it is proof to something closer to absolute certainty than to proof on the balance of probabilities. "Balance of probabilities" is proof to a standard of 50% +1. 

David Chow's legal career effectively began in 1999 when he appeared as agent for accused person's charged with summary conviction offences that did not carry a risk of jail. That career progressed when he joined the Crown Prosecutor's office in 2002. He has been defending cases since 2005. David has run hundreds of trials, for cases ranging from impaired driving, to crimes of violence (including murder) and property offences. Today David is not only a Calgary based criminal defence lawyer, he is a roadside sanctions lawyer who handles cases Alberta-wide.

** Note: while updating this website, this same case was spoken about in an earlier post. R. v. S.B.B, in August 2023. The August 2023 case was linked to this case, but actually concerned a failing to appear charge. **