Donald Melnyk

The appellant was convicted of break, enter and theft after police found recently stolen goods in his bedroom.

The appellant offered no explanation for his possession of the goods.

The trial judge convicted him based solely on the doctrine of recent possession, and the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held that unexplained recent possession of stolen property permits, but does not mandate, an inference of guilt for theft or offences incidental thereto, such as break and enter.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of attempted break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The Crown appealed, and the Manitoba Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge's doubt regarding intent was unreasonable and thus an error of law.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that a finding regarding intention is a finding of fact.

Unless a statutory presumption shifts the burden of proof to the accused, an erroneous finding of fact in favour of the accused remains an error of fact, not an error of law alone, and therefore does not confer a right of appeal on the Crown.