R v Woodhouse, 2023 MBCA 80

Citation: R v Woodhouse, 2023 MBCA 80 Date: 20230925 Docket: AR23-30-09924 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron BETWEEN : ) K. E. Hester ) for the Appellant HIS MAJESTY THE KING ) ) C. R. Savage Respondent ) for the Respondent ) ) Appeal under r 45 of the - and - ) Criminal Appeal Rules and ) rr 37.3 and 38 of the ) Court of Appeal Rules ( Civil ) LEVI RIVER WOODHOUSE ) ) Joint written submissions filed: (Accused) Appellant ) September 8, 2023 ) ) Judgment delivered: ) September 25, 2023 BEARD JA (for the Court): I.

THE ISSUE [ 1 ] The accused is appealing his conviction for possession of a motor vehicle of a value exceeding $5,000, knowing that it was obtained by the commission of an offence punishable by indictment, contrary to section 354(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] While the accused raised two grounds of appeal, he is now limiting his appeal to one ground, being that the trial judge erred in making a finding that he was in joint possession of the stolen vehicle. He is asking this Court to overturn his conviction and order a new trial. [ 3 ] T he Crown joins the accused in his appeal, agreeing that the trial judge erred in making a finding of joint possession, that the conviction should be overturned, and that there should be a new trial ordered.

Moreover, both parties agree that this appeal may be determined on the basis of written materials filed, without an oral hearing being held (see r 37.3 of the Court of Appeal Rules (Civil) , Man Reg 555/88R ). II. BACKGROUND [ 4 ] Very briefly, the accused was the passenger in a stolen vehicle that was being driven by another person. They were driving in a residential area in a manner that attracted the attention of a resident. When they stopped, the resident noticed that the tires were blown and the vehicle was damaged, so he believed that the vehicle was stolen.

When both of the men in the vehicle got out and ran in opposite directions, the resident and his neighbour gave chase, catching and holding both men until the police arrived. [ 5 ] There was evidence at the trial that there was a warrant out for the accused’s arrest at the time of this incident. III. ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 6 ] Section 354(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code states:

Possession of property obtained by crime 354(1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or the proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from (

a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment . . . . . . [ 7 ] At trial, one of the accused’s defences was that the Crown had not proven that he knew that the vehicle was stolen. After reviewing the evidence, the trial judge concluded that the accused “knew or ought to have known that the vehicle that he was a passenger in had been obtained by crime.” [ 8 ] The parties’ position is that the trial judge erred in law by applying an incorrect legal standard. Further, both parties argue that the trial judge erred in his finding regarding whether the accused had the required knowledge that the vehicle was stolen. [ 9 ] More particularly, the mens rea for section 354(1) (

a) requires that the accused knew that the vehicle was stolen. While the accused could have been convicted on the basis of actual knowledge or wilful blindness regarding the theft of the vehicle, it was not open to the trial judge to convict him on the basis that he “ought to have known” that the vehicle was stolen. “Ought to have known” is a reasonable person standard, and it is not sufficient to establish knowledge within this provision. ( See R v Tyrell , 2014 ONCA 617 at paras 30 , 33.) [ 10 ] We agree with the parties that, by including a reasonable person standard in the mens rea of this offence, the trial judge erred in his

interpretation and application of the law, which is an error of law that is reviewed on the standard of correctness. [ 11 ] It is not possible to determine whether the trial judge applied this incorrect standard when finding that the accused had the required mens rea for this offence, so the appeal must be allowed and the conviction set aside. We also agree with the parties that, based on the evidence in this case, the appropriate remedy is to order a new trial. [ 12 ] For these reasons, we are granting the appeal, setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial. JA JA JA