R. v. Loutit and Wiebe

R. v. Loutit and Wiebe

On the totality of the circumstantial and direct evidence the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Loutit resided at and controlled the residence, had knowledge of and control over large quantities of cannabis and accessible firearms, and either directed or aided distribution and stored firearms in a manner that was a marked departure from the required standard of care; the evidence was insufficient to prove Wiebe had the requisite control or assisted in the offences, therefore Loutit convicted on all counts and Wiebe acquitted.

Citation
2024 BCSC 525
Parties
Crown: Rex; Accused: Scott William Loutit; Accused: Katelyn Bree Wiebe
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial (judgment After Trial)
Outcome
Scott William Loutit: convicted on all three counts. Katelyn Bree Wiebe: acquitted on all three counts.
Legal Topics
Possession (personal, Constructive, Joint), Possession for Purpose of Trafficking/selling, Careless Storage of Firearms (s.86 Criminal Code), Possession of Loaded Restricted Firearm (s.95 Criminal Code), Wilful Blindness, Aiding and Abetting, Circumstantial Evidence, Search Warrant Admissibility, Cannabis Act Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Firearms Law Controlled Substances Law Evidence (search and Seizure) Possession (personal, Constructive, Joint) Possession for Purpose of Trafficking/selling Careless Storage of Firearms (s.86 Criminal Code) Possession of Loaded Restricted Firearm (s.95 Criminal Code) +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

Scott William Loutit

Accused

Katelyn Bree Wiebe

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (judgment After Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Loutit possessed cannabis for the purpose of selling
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Loutit possessed firearms including a loaded restricted pistol and that storage was careless contrary to s.86(1)
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Wiebe possessed the cannabis or firearms or aided and abetted their possession

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the circumstantial and direct evidence the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Loutit resided at and controlled the residence, had knowledge of and control over large quantities of cannabis and accessible firearms, and either directed or aided distribution and stored firearms in a manner that was a marked departure from the required standard of care; the evidence was insufficient to prove Wiebe had the requisite control or assisted in the offences, therefore Loutit convicted on all counts and Wiebe acquitted.

Court Disposition

Scott William Loutit: convicted on all three counts. Katelyn Bree Wiebe: acquitted on all three counts.

Orders

  • Findings: Scott William Loutit guilty of careless storage of firearms contrary to s.86(1) Criminal Code, possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s.95(1) Criminal Code, and unlawful possession of cannabis for the purpose of selling contrary to s.10(2) Cannabis Act
  • Findings: Katelyn Bree Wiebe not guilty on each of the three counts; discharged and free to leave