Law360 Canada (November 7, 2022, 9:26 AM EST) -- Appeal by appellants, Havyarimana and Kollie, from their convictions for break and enter in relation to a home invasion robbery on grounds including, inter alia, unreasonable verdict, insufficient reasons, and misapprehension of the evidence. Several masked men armed with a gun, crowbar and knife, entered a home occupied by a few adults and two children. The invaders demanded drugs and money and threatened the occupants with weapons. Some of the occupants were beaten and the house was ransacked. The invaders took a small amount of cocaine, cash, some clothing and a BMW vehicle. The Crown called 17 eyewitness, expert and police witnesses at trial. The evidence admitted included extensive wiretap surveillance gathered by police while investigating a different offence alleged to have occurred earlier in time and targeting both appellants. In the recordings, the appellants, together with their co-accused Geng and witness Francis, were alleged to be heard planning the home invasion and discussing it after the fact. Cell phone tracking evidence was also admitted which placed Kollie’s phone in and around both the home invaded and Francis’ residence on the night of the robbery. A civilian witness testified Kollie told her he and Havyarimana had stolen a BMW, tied people up and threatened them about not calling the police. The appellants called no evidence. The trial judge found both appellants guilty of break and enter....