Upon leaving a Surrey convenience store, threatening remarks were allegedly made toward the complainant by the accused. The remarks constituted a threat in violation of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found not guilty. The fundamental issue of the case is the identification of the individual who is alleged to have spoken the words, which are beyond any doubt threatening.  The frailty of eyewitness identification has long been a subject of judicial comment.  The complainant identified the accused through voice identification.  Voice identification in this case was limited. The accused denied making the statement.