Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The Appellant was convicted of robbery and possession of stolen property by Gerow J. of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, sitting without a jury. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, Oppal J.A. dissenting.

On September 28, 2001 at approximately 11:30 a.m., two masked men robbed the Scotia Bank located at 2207 West 41st Avenue, Vancouver, B.C., taking a total of $4,117 in Canadian and American funds. This money included bait money as well as dye-pack money, the latter not being real and meant to explode through a triggering mechanism. The Appellant and two others were charged with respect to the robbery. There is no evidence of any threat of weapons or any weapons involved in the robbery. Witness descriptions of the robbers and the clothing they wore were all consistent in describing the men as Caucasian, masked and wearing baseball caps. Shortly after the robbery, a police dog obtained a scent in the bank and tracked it from the bank to a side yard where two face masks, two baseball caps and a jean jacket were located. These items were sent for DNA analysis. The Crown’s expert witness testified that there were multiple contributors to the DNA found on one of the baseball caps and that the Appellant was a possible contributor to that DNA, with a statistical match of 1 in 4400.

Four hours after the robbery police located the three accused, including the Appellant, at a residence in Vancouver. They observed the Appellant at the rear of the house, apparently counting money and they subsequently arrested all three men. On the Appellant’s arrest, the police found in his possession $630 in Canadian funds and $165 in American funds, along with a Canadian $10 bill which was identified as a “bait bill” taken from the bank However, there was some evidence that the bait money actually came from a different bank and not from the Bank of Nova Scotia that was robbed on that day.

The Appellant and his co-accused were tried together. The question of identification was the sole issue at trial. The Appellant did not testify or call any evidence. Based on her review of all the evidence, including the Appellant’s possession of bait money stolen from the bank within hours of the robbery, the DNA evidence, and his association with the other accused, the trial judge determined that it was reasonable that she could draw an inference of guilt of theft or of offences incidental to theft, that is, possession. Her ruling was upheld on appeal. Oppal J.A., dissenting, was of the view the trial judge had paid an inordinate amount of attention to the doctrine of recent possession. Oppal J.A. found that another reasonable inference that could be drawn on the proven facts was that the Appellant could have been in the possession of stolen money without being involved in the robbery. Oppal J.A. was of the view that the verdict was unreasonable. He would have allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and entered an acquittal.