R. v. MacNair
The conviction was upheld because the trial judge's factual finding that the appellant was in recent possession based on significant alterations was entitled to deference and the appellant's explanation did not rebut the permissible inference of knowledge; no palpable or overriding error was demonstrated.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C44030
- Parties
- Appellant: Barbara MacNair; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 June 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Possession of Property Obtained by Crime, Doctrine of Recent Possession, Evidentiary Inferences
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Barbara MacNair
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's possession of the stolen truck was sufficiently recent to permit an inference that she knew it was stolen
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in applying the doctrine of recent possession and whether the appellant provided a reasonable explanation to rebut the inference
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction was upheld because the trial judge's factual finding that the appellant was in recent possession based on significant alterations was entitled to deference and the appellant's explanation did not rebut the permissible inference of knowledge; no palpable or overriding error was demonstrated.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. MacNair Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-06-19 Docket numbers C44030 Judges Sharpe, Robert J.; Juriansz, Russell G.; Lane, George Dennis Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060619 DOCKET: C44030 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – BARBARA MACNAIR (Appellant) BEFORE: SHARPE and JURIANSZ JJ.A. and LANE J. (ad hoc) COUNSEL: Jeffrey Langevin for the appellant Lance Beechener for the respondent HEARD: June 12, 2006 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Bruce E. MacPhee of the Ontario Court of Justice dated May 6, 2005. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant appeals her conviction of possession of property obtained by crime, contrary to s. 355(a) of the Criminal Code submitting that the trial judge erred by applying the doctrine of recent possession. The property, a truck, was stolen on November 29, 2001, and the appellant registered it in her name on January 24, 2002. Significant alterations were made to the truck during the intervening fifty-six day period. [2] The appellant submits that the appellant was not in recent possession of the truck as motor vehicles are readily transferable and the alterations to the truck could have been made well before the appellant registered it. [3] The question whether the appellant’s possession of the truck was sufficiently recent to permit an inference that she knew it was stolen is one of fact that depends on all the circumstances of the case. The trial judge found that the appellant was in recent possession of the truck based on the significant alterations that were made to the truck. This finding of fact is deserving of deference absent the demonstration of palpable or overriding error. [4] The trial judge was also entitled to conclude that the appellant, in her statement to the police read as whole, did not provide a reasonable explanation for her possession of the truck. [5] We are not persuaded there is any basis for appellate intervention in this case. The appeal is dismissed. “Robert J. Sharpe J.A.” “R.G. Juriansz J.A.” “D. Lane J. (ad hoc)”