R. v. Reid, 2024 BCPC 4

Citation: R. v. Reid 2024 BCPC 4 Date: 20240102 File No: 78721 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. ERIC JAMES REID REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.T. DOULIS Counsel for the Crown: S. Rai Appearing on his own behalf: E. Reid Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: December 14, 2023 Date of Judgment: January 2, 2024 [ 1 ] Eric James Reid is before the court having been charged under Information 78721-1 with mischief to property.

The sole count under Information 78721-1 reads: Count 1 Eric James REID, on or about the 9th day of August, 2023, at or near Prince George, in [the] Province of British Columbia, did commit mischief by wilfully damaging a lamppost, of a value not in excess of five thousand ($5,000) dollars, the property of the City of Prince George, contrary to Section 430(4) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] I will refer to the accused in these reasons for judgment as “Eric Reid”. [ 3 ] Eric Reid appeared before me for trial on December 14, 2023, in Prince George Provincial Court.

The Crown called two witness: Bylaw Enforcement Officer Ronald James Lawrence, and RCMP Constable Whitney Marie Matthews. The Crown placed into evidence two exhibits. [ 4 ] Eric Reid was self-represented and did not call any evidence on behalf of the defence. When asked if he intended to represent himself in these proceedings, he replied, “All of my trials, I represent myself, Your Honour”. After reading to him the sole charge on Information 78721-1, Eric Reid confirmed he was aware the Crown bears the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that he did not have to prove his innocence.

I also advised Eric Reid the Crown will proceed first with its case and call its witnesses, whom he had the right to cross-examine. After the Crown had presented its case, Eric Reid could call any witnesses he may wish to call. EVIDENCE OF RONALD JAMES LAWRENCE [ 5 ] Ronald Lawrence lives in Prince George, BC. He is currently employed by the City of Prince George as a bylaw enforcement officer for the downtown division. I will refer to the City of Prince George in these reasons as the “City”. I will refer to Ronald James Lawrence as “Ronald Lawrence”.

Ronald Lawrence is duty-bound to protect City property and enforce the City bylaws. He is expected to treat the public with whom he interacts in a professional and courteous manner. [ 6 ] On August 9, 2023, Ronald Lawrence was on shift and patrolling the City streets. He observed Eric Reid in the act of writing with a felt marker on a blue lamppost, which was property belonging to the City. The lamppost was located in front of the City Furniture store in the 1300 block of Third Avenue. [ 7 ] Ronald Lawrence knew and recognized Eric Reid.

Although they had never been personally introduced, Ronald Lawrence had frequently encountered Eric Reid on the City streets in the previous eight months. Ronald Lawrence testified that on several occasions throughout the year, he had verbal interactions with Eric Reid wherein Eric Reid had threatened him. Ronald Lawrence specifically recalls an incident in May 2023 in front of the needle exchange and another in June 2023 outside the “fire pit”. Ronald Lawrence could not give exact dates to these incidents.

Nevertheless, the nature and frequency of his interactions with Eric Reid is the reason Ronald Lawrence knew and recognized Eric Reid on August 9, 2023. Ronald Lawrence explained that in their previous encounters, Eric Reid had yelled and threatened him, saying words to the effect that Ronald Lawrence did not know who he was dealing with and that Ronald Lawrence should watch his back. [ 8 ] When he observed Eric Reid writing on the City lamppost on August 9, 2023, Ronald Lawrence told him to stop. Eric Reid refused to comply.

Ronald Lawrence reiterated his directive that Eric Reid stop writing on the City’s lamppost. Eric Reid carried on writing on the lamppost. Ronald Lawrence told Eric Reid that if he did not stop writing on the lamppost, he would call the police. Eric Reid did not stop. Ronald Lawrence got out of his patrol vehicle; he walked within a foot of Eric Reid and photographed him writing on the City lamppost. Eric Reid told Ronald Lawrence to mind his own business.

Ultimately, Ronald Lawrence complained to the RCMP. [ 9 ] The two coloured photographs Ronald Lawrence submitted into evidence at trial are date stamped as August 9, 2023. Exhibit 1 is timestamped as 10:16:58 a.m. and Exhibit 2 is timestamped as 10:16:43 am. Exhibit 1 depicts a man in a brown shirt writing on a blue pole with a pink felt marker. Exhibit 2 is a close-up of the writing on the blue lamppost and the hand of the person manipulating the pink felt marker.

Ronald Lawrence identified Exhibits 1 and 2 as photographs he took on August 9, 2023, of Eric Reid writing with a felt marker on the City’s lamppost at 1393 Third Avenue. [ 10 ] Ronald Lawrence did not explain why the photographs are endorsed with white script stating “1389 Third Avenue” instead of “1393 Third Avenue”. Nevertheless, Ronald Lawrence identified the accused in court as Eric Reid, the man who he observed and photographed writing on the City lamppost on August 9, 2023. [ 11 ] The RCMP arrived and arrested Eric Reid, and Ronald Lawrence left the scene.

Ronald Lawrence estimates this whole incident took approximately 15 minutes. [ 12 ] Ronald Lawrence was not aware of any writing on the lamppost prior to this incident. [ 13 ] Ronald Lawrence testified the damage to the City property could only be rectified by repainting the lamppost. He does not know how much that would cost. EVIDENCE OF CONSTABLE WHITNEY MARIE MATTHEWS

[14] Whitney Marie Matthews testified as the second Crown witness. She is a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police andassigned to the City of Prince George’s RCMP Detachment. I will refer to her in these reasons as “Constable Matthews”. [15] Constable Matthews is a general duty officer assigned to the Prince George RCMP Detachment. Her primary duties includeresponding to calls for service from the general public, 911 calls, and other emergencies. [16] Constable Matthews became involved with the matters before the court on August 9, 2023.

On that day, Constable Matthewsresponded to Ronald Lawrence’s request for police assistance at 1393 – 3rd Avenue, Prince George, BC. Constable Matthews wasadvised there was an individual who was spray painting City property and requested police intervention. Constable Matthews wasdispatched to 1393 – 3rd Avenue in Prince George, BC, which is an address in front of the City Furniture store. When ConstableMatthews arrived on the scene, Ronald Lawrence was present. Ronald Lawrence told Constable Matthews there was a man he knew asEric Reid who was writing on City property.

Specifically, Ronald Lawrence told Constable Matthews that Eric Reid had written on alamppost. Ronald Lawrence showed Constable Matthews the lamppost. Constable Matthews observed a blue lamppost with writing onit. [17] Constable Matthews understood the City had a number of issues with Eric Reid writing on City property despite the bylawenforcement officer’s repeated directions to stop.

For this reason, Ronald Lawrence asked the RCMP to pursue charges against Eric Reidfor mischief. [18] On August 25, 2023, Constable Matthews attended the City bylaw office and obtained photographs and a written email fromRonald Lawrence regarding the August 9, 2023, incident. [19] On September 10, 2023, Constable Matthews obtained an audio-recorded statement from Ronald Lawrence, and the photographshe had taken of Eric Reid writing on the City lamppost on August 9, 2023. These include photographs that have been tendered in theseproceedings as Exhibits 1 and 2.

Officer Matthews recognized the man in the photographs as Eric Reid. Constable Matthews hadencountered Eric Reid in the City streets previously in her capacity as a general duty officer. [20] Constable Matthews identified the accused in court as the man she knows as Eric Reid and the person she recognized in Exhibit1. [21] After investigating the offence, Constable Matthews forwarded her investigation report to Crown counsel, who approved thecurrent charge before the court. On September 21, 2023, the RCMP’s court liaison officer swore Information 78721 before J.

Wang, aJustice of the Peace for the Province of British Columbia. The Justice of the Peace issued an endorsed warrant for Eric Reid’s arrest withrespect to this matter. [22] On October 11, 2023, the warrant with respect to Information 78721-1 was executed against Eric Reid. He entered a not guiltyplea and this matter was scheduled for trial on December 14, 2023. [23] Eric Reid chose to self-represent, as is his preference. A person accused of a crime in Canada has a constitutional right torepresent her or himself: R. v. Swain, (SCC).

The court cannot interfere with this decision and cannot force counselupon an unwilling accused: R. v. Cunningham, 2010 SCC 10, para. 9; Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario, 2013 SCC43 , para. 116; R. v. Crichton, 2015 BCCA 138 , para. 24-25. LEGAL FRAMEWORK [24] Eric Reid is charged with mischief under s. 430(4) of the Criminal Code.

Section 430 defines the offence of mischief in relevantpart as follows: Mischief 430

(1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully (

a) destroys or damages property; . . . [25]

Section 428 of the Criminal Code defines “property” as meaning “real or personal corporeal property”. [26] The word “wilfully” is defined in section 429(1) of the Criminal Code in the following manner: Wilfully causing event to occur 429

(1) Every one who causes the occurrence of an event by doing

an act or by omitting to do

an act that it is his duty to do, knowingthat the act or omission will probably cause the occurrence of the event and being reckless whether the event occurs or not, shall bedeemed, for the purposes of this Part, wilfully to have caused the occurrence of the event. [27] Section 429(2) of the Criminal Code states: 429 . . . Colour of right

(2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 if they act with legal justification or excuse or colour of right. [28] Section 429(3)(

a) states:

429 . . . Interest

(3) Where it is an offence to destroy or to damage anything, (

a) the fact that a person has a partial interest in what is destroyed or damaged does not prevent him from being guilty of the offence if hecaused the destruction or damage; and . . . [29] The Crown must prove all the elements of the offence of mischief beyond a reasonable doubt before the court can make a findingof guilt. The static elements for this and any criminal offence are: (

a) the identity of the accused in the sense that the person standing inthe courtroom is the person who is alleged to have committed the offence; (

b) the jurisdiction of the court over the person accused; and(

c) the timing of the offence. [30] I am satisfied the Crown has proven the static elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, I find:

a) The person in the prisoner’s docket in Courtroom 103 appearing before me on December 14, 2023, was Eric James Reid, the personcharged under Count 1 of Information 78721 with the offence of mischief, contrary to s. 430(4) of the Criminal Code;

b) The Crown has proceeded summarily with the charges of mischief to property of a value under $5,000 against Eric Reid contrary to s.430(4) of the Criminal Code. This offence is within the jurisdiction of the BC Provincial Court: Provincial Court Act, RSBC 1996, c379;

c) The offence of mischief charged on Information 78721-1 is alleged to have occurred in Prince George, British Columbia, which iswithin the jurisdiction of the BC Provincial Court;

d) Information 78721-1 was sworn on September 21, 2023, less than six weeks after the August 9, 2023 offence date. This is wellwithin the 12-month statute of limitations set out in s. 786 of the Criminal Code for charging a

summary conviction offence. [31] Both the Crown’s witnesses identified Eric Reid in court. Eric Reid contests their identification of him as the perpetrator as notmeasuring up to his personal standard of 1,000% accuracy. [32] The court does not require 1,000% or its equivalent 100% certainty on identifying the accused. The Crown bears the burden ofestablishing the identity of the person who committed the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not an absolute certainty. That thewitness be 100% sure of the identity of the suspect is not a standard of proof required in criminal matters: R. v.

Kish, 2014 ONCA 181, in para. 53; R. v. Muise, 2016 NSCA 34 , at para. 29; R. v. Scott, 2000 BCCA 220 , in para. 18, aff’d 2001SCC 73 . [33] The wrongful act of the offence of mischief to property pursuant to s. 430(1)(

a) of the Criminal Code (the wilful destruction ordamage to property) is complete when the accused damages the property. It is an offence of general intent: R. v. Toma, 2000 BCCA 494.The mental element or criminal intent for the offence of mischief requires proof of no more than an intentional or reckless causing ofthe wrongful act. Justice Rowles for the unanimous appellate court cites the following passage of Salhany J. from R. v. Butler, (ONSC): . . . In my view, the word "wilful" means nothing more than intentional as opposed to accidental.

In other words, just as there cannot bean assault, which is a crime of general intent, if a person stumbles against another, because he did not intend to apply force, similarlythere can be no mischief if a person accidentally falls against a wall and damages it. In my view, it is not necessary for the Crown todemonstrate that the accused committed the crime of mischief with evil or corrupt intention.

In my view, the offence of mischief is one of general intent and the defence of drunkenness is not available. . . . [34] My analysis of the evidence in this trial is governed by some fundamental principles that apply to all criminal trials. First, EricReid is presumed innocent, and second, the Crown bears the burden of proving Eric Reid’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In R. v.Lifchus, (SCC), Cory J. stated at para. 27: 27 . . .

If the presumption of innocence is the golden thread of criminal justice then proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the silver andthese two threads are forever intertwined in the fabric of criminal law. . . . [35] As the trial judge, I cannot convict Eric Reid unless the evidence I accept as credible proves him guilty beyond a reasonabledoubt: R. v. W.(D.), . In R. v.

Starr, 2000 SCC 40 , at para. 242, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that thoughproof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty and though it does not require proof beyond any doubtfor a conviction to be entered, it is “much closer to ‘absolute certainty’ than to a ‘balance of probabilities’”. A reasonable doubt is notbased on sympathy or prejudice, nor is it “proof beyond any doubt” or “an imaginary or frivolous doubt” (Lifchus, at para. 31).Reasonable doubt must stem from reason and common sense and is logically connected to the evidence or lack thereof.

It cannot begrounded on assumptions, speculation or conjectures. In R. v. Paul, (SCC), Justice Ritchie for the majority states: I do not think that the burden resting upon the Crown to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt includes the addedburden of negativing every conjecture to which circumstantial evidence might give rise and which might be consistent with theinnocence of the accused. ASSESSING THE RELIABILITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE CROWN WITNESSES

[36] Eric Reid challenges the reliability and credibility of the Crown witnesses, particularly as to the issue of identity. [37] Assessing the reliability and credibility of witnesses is a contextual, fact-specific exercise. I can believe none, part, or all of awitness' evidence and may attach different weight to different parts of that evidence: R. v. S. (R.D.), (SCC). [38] Reliability and credibility are not the same. “Reliability” involves the accuracy of the witness’ testimony.

It engagesconsideration of the witness’ ability to observe, recall and recount. “Credibility”, on the other hand, concerns the witness’ veracity – tospeak the truth as the witness believes it to be: R. v. Morrissey, (ONCA), at p. 526. Simply put, credibility addresseswhether a witness is lying, whereas, reliability is about honest mistakes. [39] Assessing credibility engages a number of factors, including: (

a) the plausibility of the witness’ evidence; (

b) any independentsupporting or contradicting evidence; (

c) the external consistency of the evidence; (

d) the internal consistency of the evidence; (

e) the“balance” of the evidence, meaning the witness’ apparent willingness to be fair and forthright without any personal motive or agenda;and to a lesser extent, (

f) the witness’ demeanour while testifying, meaning not so much what is said but how it is said. [40] It goes without saying that evidence that is not credible is not reliable; however, the corollary is not true: evidence that is crediblemay nevertheless be unreliable: R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20 , para. 82. ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF CITY BYLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RONALD LAWRENCE [41] In this case, Officer Ronald Lawrence testified he personally observed Eric Reid writing on the lamppost. Ronald Lawrenceknew Eric Reid from previous encounters.

He took a photograph of Eric Reid writing on the lamppost even after Ronald Lawrence toldhim to stop. In considering the factors engaged in assessing credibility, I find: Plausibility: There is nothing implausible of Ronald Lawrence’s evidence; Corroborative evidence: The identity of the accused as the person who committed the wrongful act is corroborated by the photographstaken by Ronald Lawrence of the person he recognized as Eric Reid writing on the lamppost. Constable Matthews corroborates there waswriting on the blue lamppost at 1393 Third Avenue, Prince George, BC on August 9, 2023.

Constable Matthews corroborates theidentity of the male in Exhibit 1 as the person she knows as Eric Reid; External consistency: Ronald Lawrence gave a formal statement to Constable Matthews in September 2023.

There is no suggestion thereis anything in his out-of-court statement that contradicts Ronald Lawrence’s testimony at trial; Internal consistency: I did not find Ronald Lawrence was inconsistent internally in, or as between, his direct evidence or cross-examination; Balance: Ronald Lawrence was clearly frustrated by the technological difficulties he experienced in trying to initiate the prosecution ofthis type of mischief to City property. Nevertheless, I do not consider Ronald Lawrence to have acted out of vengeance or animus orulterior motive.

In his view, by marking up City property, Eric Reid was making it unsuitable for people to be in the City’s downtowncore; Demeanour: There is nothing in Ronald Lawrence’s demeanour which detracted from his credibility. [42] Eric Reid suggested Ronald Lawrence was untruthful because when asked his work address, Ronald Lawrence said, “I believeit’s 1100 Patricia Avenue”. There is no suggestion this address was inaccurate. Even so, this does not mean Ronald Lawrence isuntruthful because he is uncertain about the business address of the City of Prince George.

I give no merit to Eric Reid’s argument in thisregard. [43] When asked in direct examination to describe the features of the suspect, Ronald Lawrence stated: “Approximately six-foot-three, 190 and that, beard, mustache, greyish hair, not a lot of hair on top of his head”. [44] In his submissions, Eric Reid asserts there was a 70-pound difference between his correct weight and Ronald Lawrence’sestimate, and a two-inch difference in his height. As Eric Reid did not testify, his submissions are not evidence.

Nevertheless, heconfronted Ronald Lawrence in cross-examination as follows: “Your description is still inaccurate. It’s either inaccurate or you’re lying,and either way, it’s flawed”. [45] Ronald Lawrence testified he had no confusion that Eric Reid was the perpetrator of this offence. Ronald Lawrence explainedthis is why he takes a photograph. In any event, whatever Eric Reid’s precise weight and height may be, Ronald Lawrence knew andrecognized him from their previous interactions.

Moreover, I am satisfied the photograph marked as Exhibit 1 at trial is of Eric Reid. [46] Eric Reid also confronted Ronald Lawrence as follows: . . . Are you aware -- because it was some time ago -- there was a news clip on CTV News that had to do with the City of PrinceGeorge’s bylaw officers regarding the way they deal with people, particularly people that live on the streets? And it was saying quite thecontrary, that they are not so, as you would put it, polite and courteous. [47] When Ronald Lawrence responded, “No.” Eric Reid went on to say: Eric Reid: So you’re lying.

Now, this is -- this is a really good one, and I’ll tell you why. Because either you’re lying, or you’re going tohave to say that Bell Media is lying. And if you say that Bell Media is lying, a lot of people at City Hall are going to keep losing theirjobs, and you’re probably going to be the first one. . . .

Eric Reid: So when you’re saying about being polite and courteous, were you being polite and courteous, or were you lying? Ronald Lawrence: I was being polite and courteous. Eric Reid: So you’re saying that Bell Media is lying? Ronald Lawrence: I’m not. I don’t know what the news -- media -- I’d have to see the actual footage to let you know on anything, but my direction always to you has always been polite and courteous, and I try to do that to everybody, and I try to keep people on an equal and level balance, so . . . and that.

Eric Reid: Well, there’s no in between, either you’re lying or they are and that’s all there is to it. Ronald Lawrence: Well, I already informed you that I’m not lying. I treated you with respect. I treated you polite and courteous, so . . . . . . Eric Reid: I’m sure Bell Media’s lawyers would be interested in hearing this one. . . . [ 48 ] Eric Reid suggests only two possibilities: either Bell Media is lying or Eric Reid is lying. The problem with his submission is twofold. Firstly, there is not one scintilla of evidence before the court of the media clip to which he refers.

Secondly, Eric Reid’s “either or” proposition presents a false dichotomy – a logical fallacy. [ 49 ] I find Ronald Lawrence a credible witness on whose evidence I can rely. [ 50 ] Eric Reid also takes exception to the fact the Crown has not provided any estimate for the cost of repainting the lamppost. I agree with him this information would be relevant; however, I do not find it critical to the Crown’s case. The Crown agrees that in default of evidence as to the cost of remediation, the default is that it is less than $5,000.

ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF CONSTABLE WHITNEY MATTHEWS [ 51 ] Constable Matthews testified she personally knew Eric Reid from previous encounters on the City’s streets. She reviewed the photographs Ronald Lawrence took of Eric Reid writing on the lamppost. She confirmed she recognized the male in the photographs as Eric Reid.

As the investigating RCMP officer, Constable Matthews took a witness statement from Ronald Lawrence and obtained the photographs as evidence to be used at trial. [ 52 ] In considering the factors engaged in assessing credibility, I find: Plausibility : There is nothing implausible of Constable Matthews’ evidence; Corroborative evidence : Constable Matthews, like Ronald Lawrence, recognized Eric Reid as depicted in Exhibit 1 from her previous encounters.

The man in the photograph looks the same as the man in the prisoner’s docket, namely, Eric Reid; External consistency : There is no suggestion that Constable Matthews’ evidence at trial is contracted by any out-of-court statement; Internal consistency : I did not find Constable Matthews was inconsistent internally in or as between her direct evidence or cross- examination; Balance : Constable Matthews gave her evidence in a frank and forthright manner without exaggeration, embellishment, or secondary motive; and Demeanour : There is nothing in Constable Matthews’ demeanour which detracted from her credibility. [ 53 ] Eric Reid argues that Constable Matthews’ evidence was unreliable and irrelevant.

He says that on August 9, 2023, she had patrolled the City of Prince George looking for Eric Reid, described as a man with a beard in a t-shirt in possession of spray paint. I agree with Eric Reid this description is vague to anyone who did not know or recognize Eric Reid; however, Constable Matthews knew Eric Reid. In this case, Constable Matthews was patrolling for someone she knew and recognized. [ 54 ] Eric Reid takes the position that because Constable Matthews was not the arresting officer, there was no point in her or him being in court.

He states: “If you never arrested anyone, then is there any reason for us to be here? It’s a simple yes or no”. [ 55 ] This is also fallacious reasoning. It is a false dilemma teetering on the false premise that an officer’s testimony at trial is only relevant if that officer effected an arrest of the accused. Constable Matthews was the investigating officer, not the arresting officer. She attended at the 1300 block of Third Avenue on August 9, 2023, in response to a complaint of a man spray painting walls. She did not find anyone engaged in this activity.

Instead, Constable Matthews met with Ronald Lawrence who showed her the lamppost depicted in Exhibit 1 and 2. Ronald Lawrence asked the police to investigate Eric Reid for the offence of mischief for writing on the City’s lamppost. When she concluded her investigations, Constable Matthews forwarded her report to Crown counsel. It is the Crown counsel who approves a charge. The RCMP liaison officer swore Information 78721-1, and on September 21, 2023, the Justice of the Peace issued an endorsed warrant. This was executed on October 11, 2023, when Eric Reid was in custody on another matter.

PROPENSITY EVIDENCE [ 56 ] In her direct examination, Crown counsel elicited evidence from Ronald Lawrence that as a bylaw enforcement officer, he is empowered to issue fines for infractions. Ronald Lawrence testified as follows: Q Thank you. Mr. Lawrence, you said that you are a bylaw officer. Do you have the power to issue fines?

A I do have the power to issue fines, yes, I do. Q Why have you not issued fines for Mr. Reid? A Because I don’t believe that Mr. Reid could pay for them, which means the fine is just going to stay outstanding. And it’s getting tothe point that if I issued a fine for every time that I saw Mr. Reid do this, he’d probably have a good thousand dollars in fines.

And it wasto the point that I had previously tried to get RCMP members to charge him with these crimes, but due to information technology, a lot ofmy evidence had been wiped out several times, so I could not produce enough of it to get them to proceed with charges on him. . . . Q Do you know what kind of frequency there is with Mr. Reid doing things like this? Is it quite often? A On my four days, I confronted him on the four days, because I work a four-on, four-off pattern. I consistently spoke to him on everyone of my four days I would see him.

It wasn’t even two hours after the needle exchange had just finished painting their building that wecaught Mr. Reid there writing on it, and he was told to stop again. [57] Ronald Lawrence’s evidence in this regard is a species of propensity evidence, which is variously called discreditable conductevidence or similar fact evidence or bad character evidence or extrinsic misconduct evidence. It is conduct outside the parameters of acharge and presumptively inadmissible. An accused “has only to answer to the specific charge contained in the indictment”: R. v. Brooks,2023 BCCA 121 , para. 47, R. v.

R.G.S., 2023 BCCA 52 , citing R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56 , at para. 43. TheCrown did not seek a voir dire to determine the admissibility of this evidence. I understood its purpose was twofold: first, it explainedwhy Ronald Lawrence did not simply levy a fine against Eric Reid for defacing City property; and secondly, it explained how it isRonald Lawrence recognized Eric Reid as the person writing on the lamppost.

I accept that Ronald Lawrence is likely to remembersomeone with whom he had frequent and prolonged, even heated interactions, over someone with whom he had a mere fleetingencounter. [58] The appellate courts are clear that “credibility”, “narrative”, or “nature of the relationship” are not “portals” to propensityevidence about uncharged similar facts: R. v. Brooks, 2023 BCCA 121 , citing R. v. MRS, 2020 ONCA 667, at para. 72, citingR. v.

Gareau, 2016 NSCA 75, at para. 51. [59] I accept Ronald Lawrence and Constable Matthews knew Eric Reid at the time of the offence from their previous interactions.The Crown adduced an eye witness to the commission of the offence now before the court. In my view, evidence of Eric Reid’s pastoffences was unnecessary to prove the Crown’s case, and prejudicial to the accused. Consequently, I will disabuse myself of thisevidence and render a decision based on the relevant and admissible evidence I heard at trial.

DEFENCES [60] I have set out below a list of defences that may be available to an accused charged with mischief: Factual innocence: If the Crown is unable to prove the essential elements of mischief beyond a reasonable doubt, they will have failed todischarge their burden and the accused will be acquitted; Accident: Where damage to property was the result of an accident, the accused may lack the necessary intent required for a conviction; Colour of right: A defence to a charge of mischief exists where the accused can prove they acted with legal justification or excuse due toan honest belief that the property in question belonged to them; Violation of the accused’s legal rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which may include the right: (

a) to libertyand security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice: s. 7 ofthe Charter; (

b) against unreasonable search and seizure: s. 8 of the Charter; (

c) to not be arbitrarily detained: s. 9 of the Charter; (

d) tobe informed promptly of the reasons for arrest: s. 10(

a) of the Charter; (

e) to retain and instruct counsel without delay: s. 10(

b) of theCharter; (

f) informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence: s. 11(

a) of the Charter; (

g) to be tried within a reasonable time:s. 11(

b) of the Charter; (

h) testimonial compulsion: s. 11(

c) of the Charter; (

i) to the presumption of innocence: s. 11(

d) of the Charter;and (

j) not to be denied reasonable bail: s. 11(

e) of the Charter. The accused bears the burden of proving a breach of a Charter right on abalance of probabilities. [61] On the evidence before me, I conclude none of these defences are available to Eric Reid. Specifically, I am satisfied: a. On August 9, 2023, Eric Reid wrote on the City’s blue lamppost located on Third Avenue in Prince George, BC, with a felt marker; b. Eric Reid’s act of writing on the blue lamppost was deliberate and not accidental; c. The lamppost belonged to the City of Prince George and Eric Reid had no honest belief it belonged to him. He had no “colour ofright” to the lamppost; d.

The writing damaged the lamppost by defacing it; e. It was reasonably foreseeable that by writing on the lamppost with a felt marker, Eric Reid would cause damage to the lamppost; f. In order to remedy the damage, the City would have to repaint the lamppost; g. The cost of repainting the lamppost is unknown, but presumably far less than the statutory limit of $5,000; and h. Eric Reid has neither asserted nor established there has been any infringement of his Charter rights.

[ 62 ] I am satisfied the evidence before me establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that on August 9, 2023, Eric Reid committed the offence of mischief to property as charged.

In reaching this decision, I have ignored the prejudicial information to the accused I have previously identified as inadmissible propensity evidence. [ 63 ] Eric Reid, I find you guilty of the sole count on Information 78721-1, charging you that on the 9th day of August, 2023, at or near Prince George, in the Province of British Columbia, you did commit mischief by wilfully damaging a lamppost, of a value not in excess of five thousand ($5,000) dollars, the property of the City of Prince George, contrary to Section 430(4) of the Criminal Code . _____________________________ The Honourable Judge J.T.

Doulis Provincial Court of British Columbia