him. After searching the house for ten or 20 minutes, the robbers
left with marijuana, cash and other items, including the victims’
 After the home invasion, between 12:52 and 1:09 a.m., the
appellant and Mr. Barnett exchanged a series of text messages.
In one message, Mr. Barnett asked the appellant “U do it?” and
he replied, “Ya bro it’s done. U ok?” At approximately 2:00 a.m.,
the appellant texted Mr. Barnett to ask whether he wanted to
play an online video game.
 The police were able to trace the location of Ms. Scott’s cell
phone travelling toward Toronto. The OPP stopped Mr. McLellan’s vehicle and found loaded handguns, drugs, money and
other items from the robbery. The occupants of the vehicle were
arrested and taken to Ottawa. In their initial statements to the
police, neither Mr. McLellan nor Mr. Mullen implicated the appellant in the home invasion.
 As a result of media coverage of the home invasion, Connor Buchanan, a friend of the appellant’s, learned of Mr. Barnett’s arrest. He became concerned about the appellant’s possible
involvement in the home invasion because he recalled the appellant telling him on the night of the robbery that Mr. Barnett and
some friends were coming to town. Connor Buchanan decided to
meet the appellant with his father, Alec Buchanan, to discuss the
situation. The appellant admitted to them that the Toronto Three
had visited him at his residence on the night of the robbery. He
also told them that the Toronto Three threatened to shoot him if
he did not give them “the guy’s name” and tell them “where’s
this dealer at”. Alec Buchanan recalled the appellant telling them
the Toronto Three threatened him by holding a gun to his head.
The appellant said he gave the Toronto Three Mr. Swan’s name
and address before they left.
 The Buchanans went to the police in late April and reported
what the appellant had told them. The police began an investigation of the appellant, which included wiretap authorizations for
his phone, as well as for the Toronto Three’s jailhouse phone conversations and visits.
 On September 9, 2010, the police re-interviewed Messrs.
McLellan and Mullen separately. During those interviews, the
police advised that they knew that the appellant had met with the
Toronto Three on the evening of the home invasion. Mr. McLellan
declined to say anything further, but when the officers told
Mr. Mullen that the appellant was saying that the Toronto Three
had threatened him, Mr. Mullen vigorously denied the allegation.
He told the officers that the appellant had given them clothing to