When the Evidence Doesn’t Add Up: Two Alberta Cases Where Circumstantial Evidence Fell Short

Two recent decisions from the Alberta Court of Appeal serve as a powerful reminder that a Crown’s case built entirely on circumstantial evidence can, and sometimes must, be challenged. Both appeals were successful for the same fundamental reason: the trial judge failed to give adequate weight to realistic alternative explanations that did not point to guilt.

What Is Circumstantial Evidence?

Alberta courts routinely explain circumstantial evidence to jurors using a familiar, everyday analogy. Imagine you step outside and you are soaking wet from rain, that is direct evidence it was raining. But suppose you spent the entire day inside a windowless office. A colleague arrives from outside with a dripping umbrella, and you recall seeing storm clouds that morning. You have not seen the rain yourself, yet you reasonably conclude it has been raining. That is circumstantial evidence: an inference drawn from a collection of observable facts rather than a firsthand observation of the event itself.

The Supreme Court of Canada addressed this type of evidence directly in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33. The Court confirmed that circumstantial evidence can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but with an important condition: the evidence must logically rule out every other reasonable conclusion. Critically, an alternative theory does not become “speculative” simply because it arises from a gap in the evidence. A reasonable doubt can be grounded in the absence of evidence just as much as in the presence of it.

This is the legal framework through which the two Alberta cases below must be understood. In each one, a realistic alternative theory existed in the evidence, and the trial judge failed to give it the weight it deserved.

The Crown’s Circumstantial Case in Bremner

A gas station attendant was robbed at gunpoint. The perpetrator stole cash, cigarettes, and the attendant’s Toyota keys before fleeing. Several hours later, police encountered Mr. Bremner walking near the abandoned Toyota with three other individuals. The evidence the trial judge found compelling included:

• CCTV footage showing the robber as a slightly built Indigenous man wearing all-black clothing with a black cap, black hoodie, black pants, and black shoes with white soles.
• Mr. Bremner matched that physical description and was dressed identically when police found him.
• He was in possession of the Toyota keys and the stolen vehicle was parked nearby.
• He also had two packs of cigarettes consistent with those taken in the robbery.

The Fatal Gap in the Evidence

The Toyota keys were certainly incriminating. But they were not the only keys Mr. Bremner had. When he was arrested, he was also found to have keys to a Ford vehicle, the same Ford that CCTV showed following the Toyota away from the gas station immediately after the robbery. Since one person cannot simultaneously drive two vehicles, the Ford keys were at least as consistent with innocent contact as the Toyota keys were with guilt.

The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside the conviction. Because Mr. Bremner had passed away during the appeal process, the matter was stayed rather than sent back for a new trial. This is an unusual procedural outcome that the Court addressed separately.

The Crown’s Case in Samandari-Matof

Police investigating a drug trafficking operation placed Mr. Samandari-Matof under surveillance. They observed him visiting a home in the Valley Ridge neighbourhood, a property where his estranged wife and children still lived, on a daily basis. He performed yard work there, came and went even when his estranged wife’s car was absent, and spent time with his children and the family dog. That, in essence, was the sum of the Crown’s case against him.

When police executed search warrants, they found nothing incriminating in his vehicle. The cocaine, approximately 596 grams, along with drug paraphernalia and firearms, was discovered hidden inside the Valley Ridge home. Separate searches of a co-accused individual’s home and vehicle also uncovered drugs and weapons.

The Glaring Alternative Theory

The Crown’s theory depended on the court accepting that Mr. Samandari-Matof controlled the cocaine hidden in that house. But there was someone who actually lived in that house: his estranged wife. The trial judge’s reasoning bypassed the obvious question of whether she, the home’s primary occupant, could have been responsible for the drugs found inside her own residence. No evidence was presented to rule that out.

Speculative vs. Plausible: Drawing the Line

Both cases illuminate one of the most contested questions in criminal law: when does an alternative theory of innocence cross from plausible to speculative?

If Mr. Bremner had been alone when arrested and held only the Toyota keys, the Crown’s case would likely have survived appeal. Had the estranged wife in Samandari-Matof been out of the country for a significant period before the police search, the same conclusion might hold. Context is everything, and that is exactly why careful, thorough analysis of every fact matters.

Why Circustantial Evidence Cases Demand Experienced Defence Counsel

Circumstantial evidence prosecutions can feel deceptively straightforward. Each individual piece of evidence may seem minor, but together they can create a powerful narrative of guilt, even when that narrative has significant holes. These two cases demonstrate that even experienced trial judges can miss those holes.

The risk of wrongful conviction in purely circumstantial cases is real and well-documented. The first and most important task when defending such a case is to resist the pull of the Crown’s narrative and look at the evidence with fresh eyes. Where are the gaps? What facts are unexplained? What reasonable alternative explanations exist that the investigation never properly explored?