New & Notable: Reasonable and sufficient

Jean-Charles Lengelo has a van. He had some friends too. He and his friends conspired to rob Bobbie's Pizza. The robbery did not go as hoped. Victims of the robbery called the police. A nearby police constable responded. He spotted the robbers. He began moving toward them in his cruiser - by driving over a "grassy median and onto hte Silver City parking lot" [para 2]. He saw them head to a van and they appeared to try and get in the van. The officer noted the licence plate of the van. The men then fled. The officer gave chase.
The van also fled but was stopped nearby a short time later. Lengelo was driving the van. Identification belonging to one of the robbers was found in the van.
Lengelo was tried by a judge alone. He did not testify. He was convicted. He appealed: 2013 ONCA 609.
On appeal he argued that the trial judge's finding was unreasonable and that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 
There was nothing in the evidence to support an innocent explanation for why the appellant was sitting in his van in the middle of the night in a parking lot, with the engine running, at a location close to the pizza shop, around the time that a person known to him was robbing the pizza shop, or why the robbers ran straight to his van after committing the robbery.  In the circumstances, the inference that the appellant’s van was the getaway vehicle was available [para 8].