R v Rowan, 2023 ABKB 164

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Rowan, 2023 ABKB 164 Date: 20230321 Docket: 220570139Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: His Majesty the King Crown - and - Tyrell David Rowan Accused _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice N.E. Devlin _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Business was slow at the West Warwick laundromat on the morning of June 14, 2022. Minyong In (“In”) had arrived at his job as manager around 10 a.m.

About an hour into his workday, In noticed an individual who had been seated in the public area amidst the washing machines for some time but showed no signs of doing laundry. It was the accused, Tyrell Rowan (“Rowan”). He was soon to make In’s day unexpectedly memorable. [ 2 ] In asked Rowan if he was there to do laundry and needed assistance. Rowan responded that he was waiting for a bus and trying to warm up. In politely asked him to leave.

Rowan responded that he would depart soon and did so ten or fifteen minutes later. [ 3 ] Shortly thereafter, In left his post to get a refreshment from a nearby gas station convenience store. He saw Rowan again inside the store, but they did not interact. In returned to the laundromat office, a small, narrow, confined space, and closed the door. High-resolution CCTV security cameras recorded him sitting and scrolling through his phone, together with what happened next. That recording provides the objective foundation of this case. [ 4 ] The recording captures Rowan re-entering the laundromat carrying a backpack.

He storms into the office, pulls a crowbar- shaped piece of rusty rebar from his backpack and raises it over his head. He rushes towards In, pushes the startled manager against the counter, and grabs In’s cellphone with his left hand.

[ 5 ] As his attacker enters the office, In rises and raises one hand defensively towards the crowbar while trying to clutch his phone to his chest with the other. Rowan forcefully pulls the phone from his victim’s hand. Just over a second later, In drops to his knees. [ 6 ] With In cowering beside the counter, Rowan examines the phone. The emergency call screen can be seen on the security footage, followed by the lock screen. Rowan then puts In’s phone into his hoodie pocket.

Words are exchanged but not captured on the video-only security system. [ 7 ] A few seconds later, In turns his head abruptly and reaches for an object on the shelf beneath the counter. This turns out to be his car keys. As In does this, Rowan shifts the now-lowered crowbar into his left hand, steps forward, and peremptorily grabs the keys. He appears to place them somewhere, though the exact action is not discernable on the video.

Immediately after doing this, Rowan makes a gesture towards In before returning the crowbar to his right hand. [ 8 ] By this point in their interaction, Rowan has used the crowbar to threaten violence and subdue In and has taken both In’s cell phone and car keys. Less than thirty second has elapsed since Rowan entered the office. The encounter, however, was about to take an unexpected turn. [ 9 ] As Rowan turns away slightly, In stands up, steps forward, and attempts to take hold of the crowbar. A struggle ensues over the weapon.

As the men tussle in the tiny office, they knock a box off the counter, revealing a knife beneath it. They continue to wrestle for the crowbar as another figure moves towards the office from the public area of the laundromat. That man is the good Samaritan of this piece, Donald Greer (“Greer”). [ 10 ] There is a table and chairs for customers at the back of West Warwick laundry. It is not easily seen from the front entrance. In his focused haste of entry, Rowan did not notice Greer seated in that area waiting on his dryer cycle.

The commotion from the office caught Greer’s attention and he approached to investigate. [ 11 ] Seeing the manager fighting with Rowan over a weapon, Greer joins the fray. He and In pry the crowbar free from Rowan’s grip and, as Greer described, the tenor of the encounter changes dramatically. As soon as the crowbar is out of Rowan’s hands, and he faces two men, he becomes quite docile. He tries to get out of the office, but Greer blocks the door. What had been a violent robbery transforms into the most Canadian of citizens’ arrests. No punches or strikes are ever exchanged.

The men simply push against one another in the doorway. [ 12 ] As this is going on, Rowan reaches into his hoodie and pants pockets at various points as if to retrieve an object. The knife is knocked out of In’s hands during the initial tripartite scuffle. He retrieves it from the floor and holds it towards Rowan. The fight largely stops at this point, with Rowan entreating the other men to let him go and Greer physically barricading him inside the office. [ 13 ] This low-intensity melee continues for a while until Greer is able to pass In his cellphone and directs him to call the police.

When Rowan realizes this is happening, he redoubles his efforts to escape . In a movie-worthy moment, he walks his legs up the wall and back-flips over Greer into the public area of the laundromat. [ 14 ] Rowan then bolts for the door, but Greer wrestles him to the ground. In throws the knife away, back onto the floor of the office, and joins in restraining Rowan. Greer puts his leg across Rowan’s chest and holds his legs to avoid being kicked. In kneels on the side of Rowan’s head, which is turned sideways on the floor. Rowan continues to struggle a little, but to no effect.

Police eventually arrive and take custody of Rowan. Further specific evidence of the witnesses [ 15 ] In addition to the video evidence, the witnesses and the accused provided their own subjective versions of these events. This included In, Rowan, Greer, and two of the attending officers. Their versions of what took place did not differ substantially but diverged on a few key points relevant to the decision the Court must make. [ 16 ] During his evidence in chief, In described Rowan angrily entering the office, and demanding to know if In had called the police on him.

He said that, after taking his phone from him, Rowan demanded to know where his car keys were and, after grabbing them, told In to take him to his car. He testified that, while being restrained, Rowan was saying he had to get out of town. [ 17 ] When led through the security video, In identified the point where he dropped suddenly to his knees, shortly before the car keys were grabbed, and testified that he did so because Rowan told him to get down. [ 18 ] In cross-examination, In at first disagreed that Rowan’s primary focus when he entered the office was asking whether In had been recording him.

He did, however, agree that Rowan was searching through his phone after he took it. Later in the examination, he conceded that Rowan did likely say something to him along the lines of “why are you recording me?” [ 19 ] In also agreed that he had told the police that the knife belonged to Rowan, when it in fact was his father’s and had been in the store beforehand. However, he remained steadfast in his evidence that Rowan asked him for his car keys. [ 20 ] Greer testified that he recognized In as the manager from previous visits to the laundromat and that, when Greer approached the struggle, Mr.

In told him he was being robbed. He further testified that the keys had been in Rowan’s hoodie pouch and that Rowan gave them back to In during the scuffle in the office. [ 21 ] Constable Michael Kelly described his response to the call. He testified that In told him that Rowan had demanded cash, his wallet, and his keys, which led him to re-arrest and re-caution Rowan for robbery. Constable David Choi provided scene photographs and testified that In told him the knife located at the scene belonged to the accused, contrary to what is seen in the video and what In admitted at trial.

[ 22 ] Rowan took the stand in his own defence. He explained that he carried the crowbar for protection because of past violent encounters on the street. He testified that it had been a rainy morning and he was wet and cold after having spent the night in a homeless shelter. He went into the laundromat to warm up. He agreed that In was polite to him and allowed him to sit there for a while. [ 23 ] Rowan described leaving the laundromat and going to the nearby gas station where he again saw In, who was on his phone. He told the Court that he assumed that In was recording him.

He attempted to explain this with a rather confusing answer about having been previously harassed on social media. Rowan has numerous prominent facial tattoos and has lived amidst the Edmonton Street scene. It is not improbable that he has received unwanted attention and has been subject to harassment. However, his evidence around being recorded and watched gave the impression of disordered thinking and immediately raised a mental health concern in my mind. [ 24 ] Rowan testified that he went back to the laundromat, entered the office brandishing the crowbar, and demanded to know why In had been recording him.

He testified that In just kept saying “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” Rowan explained that he took the phone and saw the camera app open and a 911 SOS call page open, leading him to believe that In might have been trying to call the police. He testified that, after looking at the phone, he told In that he was not going to hurt him. Rowan correlated this statement to the point in the video immediately before In went down to his knees. [ 25 ] Rowan was adamant that he did not ask for the car keys. He said that he did not know if In had a car.

He emphasized that he did not ask for anything and had no interest in the large amount of cash openly visible in the office. Rather, he claimed that he saw In reach for something and reflexively grabbed it himself. He said he had no idea what had become of the keys in the melee. Rowan told the Court that he thought In made up the evidence about the car keys “because he was frustrated with the whole situation.” [ 26 ] Rowan was emphatic that he did not want money and was not there to rob anyone.

He also denied saying anything about having to get out of town, explaining that he lived in Edmonton and had nowhere to go. [ 27 ] When asked to explain why he confronted In if not to rob him, Rowan explained that his intention was just to look at the phone and ask if he was being recorded. When asked what he intended to do if he found that he had been recorded, he paused for a while and said “leave”. This answer made little contextual sense.

I also note that there was no evidence In recorded Rowan at any point. [ 28 ] The anomalies in Rowan’s described experience became more understandable when he was asked a number of questions that led him recount that he frequently hears voices. He told the Court that he tries to ignore them but sometimes becomes angry because he feels people are treating him badly. [ 29 ] Rowan described his fear when being restrained, in particular because he has been stabbed numerous times and In was threatening him with the knife.

He was also obviously angered that he had been falsely portrayed to the police as a robber when he did not ask for money or take anything. Notably however, Rowan also testified that, once the other two men had him down on the floor, In “still had the knife.... He kept threatening me.” He said that In “kept telling me with the knife that he was going to stab me and things like that” and that “he was on top of me with the knife.” [ 30 ] In cross-examination, Rowan admitted that he snatched the phone away from In and after looking at it, put it in his hoodie pocket.

He denied taking the car keys or putting them in his pocket, saying he could not have held both the keys and the crowbar in his right hand at the same time. [ 31 ] The defence also called Rowan’s brother and mother. They both described his struggles with mental health, and with hearing voices in particular. His mother told the Court that Rowan had an extremely traumatic childhood on the Louis Bull first nation and was deeply mentally and emotionally troubled. She related that he displayed paranoia even in his early years. [ 32 ] She also described how he began to use cannabis and alcohol as a teenager.

She testified that a traumatic family event caused Rowan to spiral into harder drugs, beginning with crystal meth and progressing to opiates. She related that he began to have real trouble with voices, which often were fixated on imminent harm to her. She explained that her family had a history of schizophrenia. [ 33 ] Her evidence was a heart-rending tale of Rowan’s struggles with the dual demons of drugs and mental health problems.

She testified that Rowan had, at times, called the police out of fear that she was being harmed, would call her a dozen times in an hour to check on her, and had gone so far as to cut off one of his fingers with bolt cutters in the belief that dire harm would come to her if he did not. [ 34 ] She lamented that he had never received a psychiatric diagnosis or treatment, as the focus of medical professionals had always been on his drug use. Importantly, she said that he had been clean while in remand awaiting trial on these charges but continued to hear voices.

The Charges [ 35 ] Rowan was charged with robbery of In, possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace, and assault against Greer. Crown Counsel invited the Court to stay the dangerous weapon charge under Kienapple principles if Mr. Rohan was found guilty of the robbery. She also elected not to proceed on the simple assault against Greer. This alleviated the need for a complex

section 34 analysis on the assault – a count that would not have increased the moral culpability of Rowan’s overall actions. The Court is grateful for this commendable exercise of Crown discretion by Ms. Rohatyn. As a result, the Court only has to decide whether Rowan is guilty of robbery. The parties’ positions

[36] The only issue in this case is whether Rowan had the requisite mental intention for robbery. For the defence, Mr. Abu made acreative argument that Rowan lacked the mens rea to steal from In, as his only intention was to find out if he was being recorded and hemade no effort to take any of the money or other valuables from the office.

He argued that Rowan lacked the dishonest specific intentionrequired for the theft component of the robbery charge and is guilty only of assault. [37] He further argued that the video is ambiguous as to what happened with the car keys, that Rowan’s evidence of having noknowledge of any motor vehicle or keys makes sense, and that In is an unreliable witness because of his admitted lies to the police (aboutthe knife and Rowan demanding his wallet) proffered to enhance the appearance of Rowan’s criminality. [38] Wisely, Mr.

Abu did not argue that Rowan took the phone under a colour of right, nor that he was incapable of appreciatingthe nature and quality of his acts due to mental illness. [39] For the Crown, Ms. Rohatyn responded that the violent taking of the cellphone is a theft accompanied by physical violenceand thus meets the definition of robbery. She points out that neither the brevity of Rowan’s possession of the phone, nor any intention toreturn it, would negate the wrongful taking.

She characterized the defence position as a conflation of motive with specific intent andargued that Rowan’s reasons for taking the phone are irrelevant to his guilt under s. 344. She urged the Court to accept In and Greer’sevidence about the car keys, as they are both more reliable witnesses and their testimony better accords with the video recording. On thatbasis she argued that the taking of the keys should be found to constitute a further act of robbery. The presumption of innocence and the Crown’s burden [40] This is a criminal trial and Rowan is presumed innocent.

He remains innocent unless the Crown proves his guilt on eachelement of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than tosatisfaction on a balance of probabilities. It is not sufficient that the Crown prove that the accused is likely guilty: R v Star, 2000 SCC 40at paras 236 and 241-2. This very high level of proof applies to every element of the offence, including Rowan’s mens rea. [41] A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense which must be logically derived from the evidence or a lackof evidence.

A reasonable doubt must not be imaginary or frivolous. Reasonable doubt cannot be based on sympathy or prejudice, nor dothese form any part of the proof against an accused person: R v Lifchus, (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 320 at para 31. [42] The onus of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the Crown throughout the trial and never shifts.Rowan does not have to prove anything and, in particular, does not have to prove his innocence. The presumption of innocence isdisplaced only when the evidence I do accept satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of the offence.

Where I am leftwith a reasonable doubt, whatever its source, I must acquit. Essential elements of the charge [43] Robbery is a theft accomplished with the aid of violence: R v Pameolik, 2020 NUCA 13 at para 89; Rex v Relf, (AB CA), 23 ALR 454 at p. 459. The Supreme Court recently described its essential elements in R v. Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3 at para10, as follows: As for its mental elements, robbery carries a double mens rea requirement. First, the offender must intend to use violence or force, and inthe case of s. 343(

d) intend to carry the offensive weapon in question (R. v. Pelletier (1992), (QC CA), 71 C.C.C.(3d) 438 (Que. C.A.), at pp. 441-42; R. v. Strong (1990), 1990 ABCA 327 , 111 A.R. 12 (C.A.), at para. 33; R. v. Nadolnick,2003 ABCA 363, 339 A.R. 348, at para. 21; R. v. Roberts, 2016 NLTD(G) 18, 377 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 174, at paras. 152-54). Second,whether the robbery involved actual stealing (s. 343(a), (

b) and (d)) or simply an intent to steal (s. 343(c)), the offender must have hadthe requisite mens rea for theft given that s. 2 of the Criminal Code defines “steal” as “to commit theft”. The mens rea requirement fortheft involves a fraudulent intent, an absence of any colour of right over the property, and the intent to deprive an owner of their property(Lafrance v. The Queen, (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201; R. v. Dorosh, 2003 SKCA 134, [2004] 8 W.W.R. 613, atpara. 14). [44] This case turns on whether the accused had the required dishonest or “fraudulent” intent.

The Supreme Court’s articulation ofthe mens rea for fraud is instructive here. Writing for the majority in R v Théroux, (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR 5 at p 19,McLachlin J (as she then was) described the specific mental element of fraud in these terms: ...the proper focus in determining the mens rea of fraud is to ask whether the accused intentionally committed the prohibited acts (deceit,falsehood, or other dishonest act) knowing or desiring the consequences proscribed by the offence (deprivation, including the risk ofdeprivation).

The personal feeling of the accused about the morality or honesty of the act or its consequences is no more relevant to theanalysis than is the accused’s awareness that the particular acts undertaken constitute a criminal offence. [emphasis added] [45] A great deal of ink has been spilled on the concept of what “fraudulent” means in the context of theft (see: R v Pace, [1964]NSJ No 3 (NSCA); J.T. Atrens, “The Mental Element of Theft” (1968) 1 UBCL Rev 112; W.

Holland, The Law of Theft and RelatedOffences, (Toronto: Carswell, 1998) at pp.179-199). [46] However, the requisite men rea of theft can be simply stated: the accused must be proven to have (

i) intentionally committedthe act of taking; (ii) knowing that this will deprive the owner of the property without any lawful justification: Lafrance at 214; R vSenior, 2021 ONSC 2729 at para 269. This second mental component – namely the accused’s decision to proceed despite knowing thattheir volitional actions will result in a wrongful state of affairs – is the “specific intent” that makes their actions a theft. [47] Once fixed with this subjective knowledge, the accused’s underlying motivations for committing the theft are irrelevant, aslong as they appreciate that they are taking that which is not theirs: R v CG, (ON SC) at para 17; see also R v

Chartrand, (SCC), [1994] SCJ No 67 at paras 54-58. The Crown does not have to prove that the accused wanted thevictim to suffer a deprivation or was driven by a desire of enrichment. [48] While most thieves and robbers want to unlawfully acquire the taken item, the word “fraudulently” in the definition of theftdoes not add anything beyond the requirement that they subjectively know that their acts will deprive the owner of their property whenthere is no legal right or basis to do so.

The requisite dishonesty lies in the knowingly wrongful deprivation: see R v Skalbania, (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 995 at para 6. [49] The deprivation in question may be brief or temporary: Criminal Code s. 322(1)(a). Neither the short duration of possession,nor an intention to return the stolen items, provide a defence: Lafrance. The Crown does not have to prove that the accused intended forthe victim to suffer a permanent or materially significant loss: Pace.

Findings of fact and analysis [50] This is an unusual case, in that what looks like a robbery to all ordinary appearances had a different internal, subjective qualityto accused. The question is whether what was going on in Rowan’s mind was such that it would leave me with a reasonable doubt that hehad the specific intention required to establish theft. [51] The principles of assessing an accused person’s evidence articulated in R v. W(D), (SCC) apply to myassessment of Rowan’s evidence.

If I believe him on a point that would exculpate him, or his testimony leaves me with a doubt about theproof of an element of the offence, I must find him not guilty: R v Ryon, 2019 ABCA 36 at para 30. [52] In this case, I accept that Rowan entered the office and demanded to know whether he had been recorded. This is consistentwith his immediate seizure of the phone from In. I find he then began asking whether In had called the police, based on seeing the SOScall screen open.

I believe Rowan when he says he did these things because he felt that In might have been recording him and wasdisturbed to a such a degree that he felt compelled to take action. [53] That said, what Rowan did, and what he was thinking while he did it, constitutes a robbery as a matter of law. He took In’sphone, using significant force to pry it away from its owner. He knew it was In’s phone, and he knew In did not want him to have it. Headmits depriving In of his phone because he wanted to do something with it.

The video leaves no doubt that he did exactly that. [54] The fact that Rowan then put the phone in his pocket only solidifies his obvious awareness that he was using and keepingsomeone else’s property.

I find that Rowan intended to take possession of the phone, use it for his own purposes to answer his concernsabout being recorded, and then do as he pleased with it once his initial interest had been satisfied. [55] The fact that Rowan was motivated to take and use In’s phone because he was paranoid about being watched and recorded, asopposed to seeking financial gain or desiring possession of the property per se, may speak to his moral blameworthiness but is irrelevantto his guilt. [56] The scenario is no different than if a bodyguard violently took a paparazzo’s camera to prevent him from photographing thatguard’s client.

Neither the motivation for the act, nor an intention to return the taken item promptly, would prevent it from contravenings 344 of the Criminal Code, and thus being a robbery. [57] I bear in mind that doing something that physically constitutes the actus reus of theft – such as a temporary deprivation ofproperty without justification – has been held to be innocent conduct if done with the intention of it being a joke or prank: R v Demarco, (ON CA), 13 CCC (2d) 369; Handfield v.

The Queen, (QC CA).[1] That is not what happenedhere. [58] In this case, the element of moral wrongfulness in taking the phone is made out by the fact that it was not Rowan’s and that heclearly had neither permission nor a lawful reason to take it. Those facts, and Rowan’s knowledge of them, are easily derived from hisevidence, the overall circumstances, and the video. Nothing in Rowan’s evidence suggests that he was unaware of these plainly obviousfacts.

Indeed, his resort to force, and a significant threat of violence, to secure the phone says everything about his state of mind aroundhis entitlement to take the device lawfully. [59] I have also considered whether the accused may have had any honest belief in a state of facts which if they existed wouldconstitute a legal justification or excuse for him retaining the phone: Demarco at p 373. Rowan testified that he believed that individualsare not allowed to film or photograph other people in public without their permission. He is wrong about the law, but for presentpurposes that does not matter.

He never suggested that someone making a wrongful recording of him would justify violently taking theircamera. Indeed, from his demeanour and slight reluctance in answering certain key questions, it was clear to me that Rowan understoodperfectly well that two wrongs did not make a right in this situation. [60] I accept that Rowan did not go to the laundromat to steal money or other valuable items. Material gain was not his goal. Iaccept his explanation for why he did what he did.

That does not change the fact that he committed a violent theft by taking In’s phone.He is guilty of Count 1 on this basis alone. [61] As concerns the car keys, I have repeatedly listened to Rowan’s testimony and compared it on a frame-by-frame basis againstthe video. His recollection is inconsistent with the objectively observable sequence of events in several significant ways. [62] To begin with, the keys were taken moments after In knelt on the ground. Rowan correlates this to having told In not to worrybecause he wasn’t going to hurt him. This makes no sense.

In’s evidence that he knelt because Rowan told him to get down does makesense, and I accept In’s version of events. [63] Second, Rowan’s evidence cannot account for, or accord with, when and why In looked towards his car keys and then began

to reach in their direction. Rowan testified that he asked In what he was reaching for. That reach, as pre-empted by Rowan’s snatching of the object, took a split second. There was no time for the exchange of words Rowan testified to. I do not find that he is lying. He may be describing what he recalls going on in his mind at the time. But that is not what actually happened. [ 64 ] I accept In’s evidence that Rowan asked for the keys. The video shows In first turn his head away from his assailant and look towards the keys.

Given the understandable degree to which In had been focussed on Rowan – who had been brandishing a weapon at him – makes his sudden and deliberate look away towards the keys unusual and most obviously explainable as the result of a prompt. On the video, In reacted as if his attention was directed to the keys. There is no contextually sensible reason for him to look suddenly towards the are under the counter in that moment, except for the keys have been mentioned by Rowan. This is consistent with Rowan asking for them.

I am satisfied that that is what happened. [ 65 ] As for Rowan’s answer that he could not have held both the keys and the crowbar in his right hand at the same time, the video shows him transferring the bar to his other hand just before he reaches forward. He clearly took the keys and put them somewhere. [ 66 ] I further accept Greer’s evidence that he saw Rowan taking the keys out of his pocket when he realized that he was in a losing situation from which he simply had to escape. This again makes sense. It also confirms that Rowan was conscious that he had taken things he ought not have.

Greer was a careful, accurate, and scrupulously fair witness. His descriptions correlated very closely with the recording and I accept his evidence, in particular where it conflicts with that of any other witness. [ 67 ] The photographs of the office taken by the police in the aftermath show the keys lying on the office floor. It is logical that Rowan either tossed them in that direction or In dropped them there when he reacted to Rowan flipping out into the hallway. [ 68 ] Finally, one further piece of evidence shows that Rowan’s recollection is unreliable.

Specifically, his evidence that In had the knife and was threatening him with it while the men lay on the floor of the laundromat lobby is demonstrably false. When the video is watched closely, In is seen discarding the knife when the struggle moved into the public area. The knife lay visibly on the ground in the office doorway throughout the portions of video leading up to the police arriving. Again, I don’t think Rowan consciously lied to me, rather he recounted his current recollection of a very stressful event that took place more than a year ago.

That recollection, though probably honest in his own mind, is unreliable. [ 69 ] For all these reasons, I find that Rowan took the car keys, pocketed them, and ultimately got rid of them when events turned against him. Specifically, I think it is likely that he tossed the keys to the floor rather than handing them back, resulting in their ultimate location as photographed by the police. [ 70 ] One piece of Rowan’s evidence that gave me considerable pause, because it made sense, was his testimony that he did not ask for the car keys because he did not know In had a car.

What I find happened, is that Rowan had no idea what to do next after examining and pocketing the cell phone. The curious answer he gave when asked what he was going to do after he looked at the phone is completely consistent with him having had no idea what would follow after he assuaged his compulsion to obtain and examine the phone. [ 71 ] I also considered the potential credibility problems with In’s evidence, given the untrue things he had said to the police.

Giving this factor due weight, I find that it is counterbalanced by In’s forthright acknowledgment of the real state of affairs on the stand and the absence of any attempt on his part to equivocate on facts such as the provenance and use of the knife. On balance, I found him to be a direct and honest witness. While his word alone would not satisfy me on a crucial point, where his evidence makes sense and is consistent with the video, I have no difficulty accepting it. [ 72 ] In the final analysis, I find that Rowan’s decision to enter the laundromat was made suddenly, impulsively, and completely without a plan.

His chaotic entry to the office, as illustrated by the fumbling retrieval of his open backpack midway through, further demonstrate this. I find that he first told In to get down, both to de-escalate the conflict and to make it easier to depart the scene and then, as he was deciding what to do, saw the keys and impulsively identified them as a means of escape from the mess he was beginning to realize that he had created.

His later attempt to divest himself of those keys while trying to flee is further consistent with Rowan having made a very bad compulsive decision and then trying multiple times to fruitlessly extricate himself. [ 73 ] On the evidence that I accept, and in particular the video which I have painstakingly reviewed, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Rowan took the car keys to afford himself a means of escape from the situation using whoever’s car they would open and start. He did so as part of his violent assault on In, and this act also constitutes an offence contrary to

section 344 of the Criminal Code . Conclusion [ 74 ] What Rowan effectively admits doing, coupled with the overwhelming evidence provided by the security video recording, conclusively demonstrate that he stole In’s cell phone and car keys, through the use violence, and is guilty of the offence created by

section 344 of the Criminal Code . [ 75 ] There is no question that the crowbar Rowan wielded was a dangerous object possessed for dangerous purposes. He is therefore also guilty of count 2. While his possession of that weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace was not entirely co- extensive with the robbery, I would accede to the Crown’s suggestion that it be stayed. [ 76 ] As a final note, it is a credit to all three men that this potentially deadly event played out so mildly. It is clear that no one wanted to hurt anyone else. In particular, the level of control and restraint Mr. Green showed while defusing this very dangerous situation is truly commendable.

Heard on the 9 th – 10 th day of March, 2023. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 21 st day of March, 2023. N.E. Devlin J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Meghan Rohatyn for the Crown John Martins Abu for the Accused