COURT FILE No.: Hamilton 12-1633

DATE: January 29, 2013

Citation: R. v. Camp, 2013 ONCJ 30

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

Central West Region

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

— AND —

JOHN CAMP

Before Justice Richard H.K. Schwarzl

Heard on December 11 and 12, 2012 at Hamilton

Reasons for Judgment released on January 29, 2013 at Brampton

Mr. Christopher Presswood.................................................................................... for the Crown

Mr. Dean Paquette................................................................................................. for the Accused

SCHWARZL, J.:

1.0: INTRODUCTION

[1.] Between November 2011 and January 2012 John Camp bought three commercial vehicles being two trailers and a Bobcat skid steer for cash from a man known to him as “Chico”. All three items turned out to have been stolen at the time Mr. Camp bought them. Mr. Camp was charged with three counts of possession of stolen property and has pled not guilty to all counts.

[2.] Mr. Camp admits that he was in control of all three pieces of commercial equipment when they were seized by the Hamilton Police in Waterdown on January 12, 2012. The sole issue is whether or not the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the Mr. Camp either knew the items were stolen when he bought them, or that he was willfully blind to the fact that they were stolen when purchased by him.

2.0: SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

[3.] Stephan Marchildon is the owner of Imperial Roofing in North York. In 2001 he bought a new commercial dump trailer for his business at a cost of $7,000. In mid-November of 2011 the dump trailer was stolen from the shop of Mr. Marchildon who reported the theft immediately to Toronto Police. At the time of the theft, the dump trailer had a number of visible annual safety stickers on the front panel and an intact Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) plate on the side. Despite being ten years old and having been used regularly in the course of the roofing business, Mr. Marchildon said the dump trailer was in “great” condition insofar as it was being used for its designed purpose and continued to after it was returned. While no specific value was established, the parties agreed that the dump trailer had a value of less than $5,000 at the time of its theft.

[4.] Nicolo Caradonna is a plumbing contractor in Toronto. In 2008 he bought a new commercial cargo trailer. He customized it so that it served the dual purposes of carrying things for his business and as a mobile cabin during hunting season. The trailer was kept in the yard of a secured storage facility and was visible from the road. The storage yard was not far from Mr. Caradonna’s business and he saw the trailer every time he drove by. He secured the trailer by means of a padlock through the trailer tongue and another padlock on the trailer door. Mr. Cardonna last used the trailer in October, 2011. He last noticed the trailer in early December, 2011 shortly before it was stolen. When the trailer was returned to Mr. Caradonna in January, 2012 the customized interior including beds, kitchen, and cabinets were missing. Despite the damage, Mr. Caradonna sold the cargo trailer privately for about $3,700.

[5.] Melrose Paving Company (“Melrose”) is a family-owned construction business. Each winter, Melrose plows snow for large commercial clients including shopping centre parking lots. To augment the company’s own fleet of skid steers, Melrose rented a number of Bobcat skid steers from Stephenson’s Rental Services, each of which was specially equipped with a large snow pusher. Melrose installed GPS tracking devices called “boomerangs” on all their skid steers, including the ones they rented. Evidence led concerning the value of the skid steer came from Mr. Camp who testified that while looking at the internet and Auto Trader, he observed that the going rate for used Bobcat skid steers in working order was between $15,000 and $20,000.

[6.] One of the Stephenson Bobcats rented by Melrose, being a model S250 Turbo[^1] was stationed at a shopping centre in Oakville. Together with other snow removal equipment, it was stored in an open area of the plaza parking lot. On winter days a supervisor for Melrose travelled from location to location to assess whether or not operators had to be called out to plow the customers’ lots, including the one in Oakville. While the supervisor inspected the lots most days, sometimes several days passed between inspections.

[7.] On January 10, 2012 Melrose’s supervisor was at the Oakville location and noticed one of the skid steers was missing. After learning that the machine was not in the shop for maintenance, the supervisor reported to one of the company’s owners that the skid steer was missing. The supervisor acknowledged that given the mild winter weather, the time between inspections might be extended and therefore the skid steer may have been missing for as long as a week. After the site supervisor made his report, the owner of Melrose Paving immediately notified the boomerang company who initiated an investigation to locate the skid steer.

[8.] Two days later on January 12, 2012 the skid steer was found at 541 Evans Road, Waterdown by a private investigator. The investigator notified the Hamilton Police of the details of his recovery efforts to that point. 541 Evans Road, Waterdown is the home of Shane Taplay who also runs his own construction business from that address. Taplay’s property is across the street from a house purchased by John Camp in late 2011. Mr. Taplay and Mr. Camp were friends and like Taplay, Camp was also in the construction business.

[9.] Detectives Sean Moore and Kevin Stanley were assigned to commence a criminal investigation. With the assistance of P.C. Kwok, Det. Stanley watched Taplay’s place while Det. Moore obtained a search warrant to seize the skid steer. While waiting for Det. Moore, P.C. Kwok intercepted a van driven by Shawn Alphonso that was pulling an unplated commercial dump trailer belonging to Mr. Camp which Alphonso had picked up from Taplay’s place. The dump trailer, which turned out to be Mr. Marchildon’s, had its VIN ground off and all its mandatory annual safety stickers were either missing or painted over. Photos of the dump trailer were filed as Exhibit 1, photos 6, and 9 through 13.

[10.] Sometime after P.C. Kwok had seized the dump trailer, Det. Moore arrived with the search warrant to enter Taplay’s property to search for the skid steer. The police found the skid steer, minus the snow plow, stored inside a Quonset hut at the back of Taplay’s property as shown in Exhibit 1, photos 7 and 8. On the floor nearby the skid steer, the police found a damaged licence plate which belonged to Mr. Caradonna’s cargo trailer. When the police searched further around Taplay’s yard, they found the cargo trailer to which the damaged plate belonged. The trailer is shown at various angles and distances in Exhibit 1, photos 1 to 5. A cut padlock was found on the hitch tongue of the cargo trailer and can be seen in photos 2 and 4 which show a broken lock that has some obvious oxidation on the body, but none is apparent on what is left of the shackle. Mr. Camp described the padlock as being rusted shut so that a key was useless to unlock it. Mr. Caradonna was not asked about the condition of the locks.

[11.] During the police search, a neighbor telephoned Mr. Taplay to tell him that the police were at his house. Mr. Taplay then called Mr. Camp a couple of times and told him to get over to the house.

[12.] Shortly after 5:00 o’clock, Mr. Camp drove to the Taplay property, approached Det. Stanley and told him that he was a contractor and that the cargo trailer was his. Mr. Camp told the police that Mr. Taplay had been holding the trailer and a skid steer for him for two or three weeks. Mr. Camp did not mention the dump trailer at this time but did tell the police that he got the cargo trailer and the skid steer from a guy who was going out of business and was going through a divorce. Mr. Camp told the police that he could not remember the man’s name.

[13.] Later that evening, Mr. Camp saw Mr. Taplay and told him that he was sorry for any inconvenience caused by what Mr. Camp said was “stuff that turns out to be stolen.”

[14.] According to Mr. Taplay, the equipment was brought to his yard by Mr. Camp over time. The dump trailer arrived first, the cargo trailer second, and the skid steer came last. The timing of the arrival of each item was shortly after each had been stolen. Mr. Taplay said he had no reason to suspect any of the pieces were illegitimate, either by the circumstances or by appearances. Mr. Taplay described the dump trailer as a pile of junk and not worth whatever Mr. Camp paid for it because it required a lot of work to be roadworthy.

[15.] With respect to the skid steer still having “Stephenson Rental” stickers on it, Mr. Taplay said he was unconcerned because he has known others in the past who bought “ex-fleet” equipment. Mr. Taplay had been helping Mr. Camp to buy a used skid steer for some time by looking on-line and in the Auto Trader as well as looking at used ones together. Mr. Taplay said that he stored all of the equipment at his place so that they would not crowd Mr. Camp’s yard during ongoing construction.

[16.] Both the dump trailer and the cargo trailer were later returned to their lawful owners. When Mr. Marchildon got his dump trailer back he immediately resumed using it for his business after getting a replacement VIN plate. Mr. Caradonno sold his cargo trailer privately for $3,700 despite it having been damaged as a result of the theft.

[17.] After being released by the police, Mr. Camp gave them the skid steer’s snow plow which was still on his property. Det. Stanley described the snow plow attachment as being “quite large.” Mr. Camp described the snow shovel as about 6 feet wide and 3 feet high. He testified that the attachment was removed because it was too big to bring inside the Quonset hut.

[18.] Mr. Camp testified that after a long and distinguished career in broadcasting, he started a second career in 2004 in the construction business. His one-man company focused mainly on home renovations, but also did some “house flips.” Occasionally Mr. Camp had a second person to help with framing, but for the most part he relies on subcontractors to help him concentrate on project management and smaller jobs. As part of his business Mr. Camp bought a new closed cargo trailer similar to Mr. Caradonna’s to carry his tools to big jobs.

[19.] Over the course of his contracting career, Mr. Camp became friends with Mr. Taplay who is also in the renovation and construction trade. From time to time, Mr. Camp has used Mr. Taplay as a subcontractor.

[20.] In December 2011 Mr. Camp bought a house on Evans Road in Waterdown across the road from the Taplay’s. The house needed a lot of work and Mr. Camp had only two months to complete it before having to move out of his old house in February of 2012.

[21.] Mr. Camp said that after buying the Evans Road property, he thought that a commercial dump trailer would be useful in helping him dispose of the gutted remains of his new house and then as an asset for his regular renovation business thereafter. He looked on the internet and asked around but did not buy one. Then one day in late November, a man known to Mr. Camp simply as “Chico” telephoned him out of the blue. Chico told Mr. Camp that he had a dump trailer for sale and was asking $1,500 for it. Chico sent a photo to Mr. Camp via his cell phone and the two men agreed to meet at a local coffee shop.

[22.] Mr. Camp said that at the start of December, Chico pulled the trailer to the meeting place. Chico showed Mr. Camp how it worked by lifting the dump. Over coffee, Chico told Mr. Camp that he was closing his landscaping business and getting a divorce. Having suffered the strains of an unfriendly divorce himself, Mr. Camp said that he sympathized with Chico’s desire to get rid of his tools and equipment for cash so as to hide the assets from his wife. From Mr. Camp’s point of view, it was a “win-win” situation in that he would get cheap equipment while helping Chico out with his matrimonial problems. Mr. Camp said that Chico told him he had other equipment, big and small, to dispose of including a skid steer and a closed cargo trailer.

[23.] Mr. Camp said he thought the trailer looked good and he paid Chico $1,500 cash for it. Despite it being a purchase of a commercial vehicle, Mr. Camp received neither a receipt nor an ownership slip, nor did he ask for either. Nevertheless, Mr. Camp hauled the trailer to Taplay’s for storage until Mr. Camp could do some custom remodelling when he could get around to it. When he and Mr. Taplay inspected the trailer closely, Mr. Camp said that the frame was cracked and a piston was bent, which he figured would cost about $1,000 repair over and above the cost to customize it. When he took possession of the dump trailer, Mr. Camp said he did not notice that the VIN plate was missing. Mr. Camp said he knows that such a trailer was supposed to have visible safety stickers and that he in fact saw a couple of such stickers

[24.] Mr. Camp testified that a few days after buying the dump trailer Chico made a second unsolicited call asking Mr. Camp if he might be interested in buying his closed trailer and skid steer. Chico stated that he had used the cargo trailer for hunting and asked $1,200 for it. Mr. Camp said that since his own cargo trailer was full, he thought buying a second such trailer would be a good idea to save on delivery charges for materials that suppliers often impose. Mr. Camp said that he met Chico at another coffee shop the next day at which time Mr. Camp inspected the cargo trailer that had been produced. He said that the trailer was in good shape and that inside the trailer were tires, boots, and raincoats. He said that Chico told him the lock on the back was seized and would have to be cut off, but the key for the side door lock worked. Mr. Camp said that Chico accepted his offer of $1,000.

[25.] Mr. Camp testified that he was going to customize the cargo trailer when he got the opportunity to do so. He said that in mid-December he bought insurance and went to the Ministry of Transportation to get a new plate after taking possession of the cargo trailer. When getting a plate for the cargo trailer he got one for the dump trailer, too. Later in his evidence, Mr. Camp said that he might have registered one of the trailers on January 12, 2012 which was about a month later.

[26.] In cross-examination Mr. Camp agreed that when he took possession of the commercial trailers, he received neither a receipt nor the ownership slip for either trailer from Chico, nor did he ask for them. He agreed that when he bought his own cargo trailer he received both a receipt and an ownership slip. Mr. Camp agreed that commercial trailers require both a VIN and an ownership to get a new plate. When asked by crown counsel how he was able to get a new plate without an ownership slip for the cargo trailer and without a VIN for the dump trailer, Mr. Camp said that he told the licensing bureau that the trailers were both home-made, because home-made trailers do not require either a VIN or an ownership slip. Mr. Camp rationalized his categorization of the commercial trailers as home-made based on his intention to customize them later on.

[27.] When asked why the cargo trailer original plate was found crumpled on the floor of the Quonset hut, Mr. Camp guessed that it got accidentally trampled during an unspecified clean up. Even though he knew the plate belonged to Chico, Mr. Camp never returned to him.

[28.] Mr. Camp testified that in mid-December 2011, which was just few days after buying the cargo trailer, Chico called Mr. Camp again once more offering to sell a Bobcat skid steer. Mr. Camp said he complained about the poor quality of the dump trailer. Mr. Camp said that Chico offered to either refund the sale price of the dump trailer or to discount the sale of the skid steer. Mr. Camp said that his confidence in the bona fides and honesty of Chico was validated and enhanced by Chico’s gesture.

[29.] Mr. Camp testified that he was intrigued by the notion of owning a skid steer as he figured it would help him with a lot of digging he needed to do as part of the renovation at his new place after the primary renovation was done. He also said that owning a Bobcat could expand his business because he could drill post holes with it. Mr. Camp explained that he had wanted a skid steer for quite a while and had, both alone and with Mr. Taplay, searched around for one. Mr. Camp testified that a used Bobcat with a bucket went for between $15,000 and $20,000.

[30.] Mr. Camp said that Chico told him he bought the skid steer as a refurbished vehicle from a rental company and that it needed some work. Mr. Camp said Chico told him everything that was wrong with it but that it came with a snow pusher attachment. Mr. Camp said that he thought that if he bought the machine for $5,000 and put another $5,000 in for repairs and accessories, he would have a good Bobcat worth about $12,000 which is in the ballpark of the prices he had seen in his earlier searches. Mr. Camp did not provide any details about either what was wrong with the skid steer or how he arrived at $5,000 for repairs and accessories.

[31.] Mr. Camp said that he offered Chico $4,000 for the skid steer, which price allowed for a rebate of $1000 on the dump trailer. Delivery of the skid steer happened sometime during the first week of January, 2012. Mr. Camp said that because he did not know how to operate a skid steer, Chico removed the machine from the trailer float. Mr. Camp said the machine “fired up right away” and Chico drove it around the property and demonstrated the skid steer’s functions, all of which Mr. Camp said looked “fine” to him. Mr. Camp said he paid Chico $4,000 in cash and Chico left. According to Mr. Camp, the circumstances of the purchase seemed legitimate to him despite (a) there being large and obvious Stephenson Rental stickers on the sides of the skid steer, (b) no apparent mechanical problems as was advertised by Chico and (c) no ownership slip.

[32.] Mr. Camp said that he accepted Mr. Taplay’s offer to keep the skid steer in his Quonset hut to both keep it out of the weather and to keep it out of Mr. Camp’s way whilst he was doing his renovation. Mr. Camp said that after the snow bucket was detached, Mr. Taplay drove it across the road.

[33.] Mr. Camp testified that he had no idea any of the commercial equipment he bought was stolen. He was emphatic that he thought he was just getting a good deal from a guy trying to hide assets from his wife because Chico’s story of matrimonial decay resonated with his own situation. Mr. Camp said Chico never seemed in a hurry and appeared honest, especially when he offered to discount the sale price of the skid steer to make up for the deficiencies with the dump trailer.

[34.] Mr. Camp testified that on January 12, 2012 he was called by Taplay in the mid-afternoon and was alerted him of police stopping Mr. Alphonso and that the dump trailer had been confiscated. Mr. Camp said that Mr. Taplay called back a little while later and told him that the police were at his place. After getting advice from a policeman friend of his, Mr. Camp drove to Taplay’s and admitted ownership of the cargo trailer and the skid steer to the police. He testified that he told the police he had the skid steer for two to three weeks even though he knew it had really only been nine or so days for the skid steer.

[35.] In cross-examination, Mr. Camp acknowledged that he knew Chico’s cell phone number and that he was communicating with Chico regularly via text and phone between late November and early January. He testified that he did business with Chico despite not knowing his last name. Mr. Camp testified that he did not know how Chico got his name or phone number to call him out of the blue, nor did he ever ask Chico how he got them. He testified that even after he learned the property was stolen and he was “pissed off” at Chico, Mr. Camp never contacted him again as no one asked him to.

[36.] Mr. Camp testified that he didn’t ask Chico for receipts because he wanted to help Chico hide the asset from his wife and had received a bargain in the process.

[37.] The evidence of not fewer than six highly reputable members of the public was that Mr. Camp enjoys a good reputation for honesty and integrity in the community at large.

3.0: POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

3.1: Defence

[38.] The defence submits that the evidence of Mr. Camp, as confirmed in part by the evidence of the two police detectives and Mr. Taplay, could reasonably be true. The defence submits that Mr. Camp honestly and reasonably believed that the circumstances of the purchases of all three commercial vehicles were legitimate. They point to a number of factors including: Mr. Camp gave a reasonable explanation why he wanted the equipment; he gave a reasonable explanation why he wasn’t suspicious about the property or the seller; the purchase prices were not unreasonably low in light of the seller’s personal circumstances; Mr. Camp was immediately candid with the police and cooperative with them throughout their investigation; and Mr. Camp is a man of good character.

3.2: Crown

[39.] The crown submits on the entirety of the evidence, including that of Mr. Camp, all the equipment was stamped with the hallmarks of having been obtained by crime. The Crown points to such facts as: Mr. Camp bought three commercial vehicles without receiving an ownership for any of them; Mr. Camp bought them from someone only known by a first name; Mr. Camp registered the two trailers as home-made knowing that he would have to produce VINs and ownership to register them as commercial vehicles; and the skid steer was in very good condition with clear signage displayed showing that was the property of Stephenson Rentals.

4.0: APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

[40.] In order for one to be found guilty of an offence under section 354 of the Criminal Code, the crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of four elements, namely:

(i) The Accused was in possession of the property;

(ii) The property was obtained by crime;

(iii) The Accused knew that the property had been obtained by crime; and

(iv) The value of property in question.

[41.] The element of the Accused’s knowledge that the property was obtained by crime may be proven in one of two ways. The first is to prove that the Accused’s actually knew or was aware that the property had been acquired by, or had come from, the commission of a crime. The second is to prove that the Accused was aware of the need to make an inquiry about the origins of the property, but deliberately failed to do so because the Accused did not want to know the truth of it: R. v. Legace, 2003 30886 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 4328 (C.A.).

[42.] A statement of innocent explanation made by an Accused at the time he is found in possession of stolen goods may be admissible as evidence of the circumstances under which the crime was committed: R v. Graham (1974), 1972 172 (SCC), 7 C.C.C. (2d) 93 (S.C.C.); R. v. Risby 1978 184 (SCC), [1978] S.C.J. No. 4 (S.C.C.). However, when there is time for reflection prior to making such an explanation, that explanation may be rejected as self-serving: R. v. Crossley (1997), 1997 3280 (BC CA), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 533 (B.C. C.A.) at ¶ 42.

[43.] Evidence of the good character of an Accused by means of his general reputation in the community may be led to establish that he is not the sort of person to commit the offence with which he is charged: R. v. Tarrant (1981), 1981 1635 (ON CA), 63 C.C.C. (2d) 385 (Ont. C.A.)

5.0: ANALYSIS

[44.] Of the four elements to be proven by the crown, the defence admits all but the third; that is, whether Mr. Camp knew or was willfully blind that the property he bought had been obtained by crime.

[45.] The primary source of the evidence that might raise a reasonable doubt comes principally from Mr. Camp himself, with some evidence of a confirmatory nature from Mr. Taplay. Applying the test set out in R. v. W.(D.) (1991), 1991 93 (SCC), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397, I do not believe Mr. Camp and his evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt. For reasons set out below, I found him to be an unreliable and discreditable witness whose evidence was rife with inconsistencies and contradictions to the point of being fatally flawed.

[46.] Mr. Camp had been in the construction business for more than seven years at the time of this occurrence. He had bought a new cargo trailer similar to Mr. Caradonna’s and was thus aware not only of the general value of such equipment, but knew that it was a plated commercial vehicle that required an ownership slip. By his evidence, he also had knowledge that used skid steers were worth between $15-20,000. He was also aware that all commercial trailers required not only ownerships, but VINs as well. Mr. Camp knew that trailers like dump trailers had to have visible safety stickers.

[47.] Mr. Camp testified that he saw a couple of safety stickers on the dump trailer. This is contradicted by the wholly reliable evidence of Det. Stanley who observed that all of the safety stickers were either removed or painted over.

[48.] It was Mr. Camp’s evidence that the reason he bought the dump trailer at all was first and foremost to use it right away to help him remove construction debris from the renovation of his new home, for which he had a narrow window of completion of only two months. He said that after that, he would customize it for his business. Mr. Camp’s stated raison d’etre was contradicted by him when he then said that he was planning to customize it when he got around to it. It was also contradicted by Mr. Alphonso who said that it was on January 12 when he carted the trailer away for a purported safety inspection. It makes no sense that Mr. Camp would buy the trailer to use right away but never bother to have it made roadworthy until nearly the end of the time in which it could be useful.

[49.] Mr. Camp testified that before buying the dump trailer, he saw it being towed by the seller who lived some distance away and was shown the hydraulic bed lifted up and down, causing Mr. Camp to assess that the trailer seemed in good shape. The general good working order and roadworthiness as first described by Mr. Camp was confirmed by the evidence of the owner, Mr. Marchildon, who said that not only was he using the trailer daily for his business but that after recovering it and replacing the missing VIN plate, he returned it into service immediately. I do not believe Mr. Taplay nor Mr. Camp when they said that the dump trailer was a piece of junk that was not roadworthy.

[50.] With respect to the cargo trailer which appears from the photographs to be in excellent condition, Mr. Camp said he paid $1,000 cash for the plated trailer. However, the owner testified that he received $3,700 for it when he sold it in a damaged condition after its return. Mr. Camp’s purchase price of less than one-third fair market value was unreasonably low. As the owner of a similar trailer which he bought new, Mr. Camp would have been well aware that the selling price here was too good to be true.

[51.] Mr. Camp testified that the padlock on the cargo trailer was too rusty for the key to work and had to be cut off. I do not believe this for two reasons. First, the owner of the cargo trailer was never confronted about this. Second, when one looks at the photographs of the lock, while there is obvious oxidation on some of the lock’s body, little if any can be seen on the shackle. He had to cut the lock off because he knew the seller never had a key for it in the first place.

[52.] Mr. Camp said that he intended to customize the cargo trailer at some point to help haul materials for his business. He said the same thing about the dump trailer. Mr. Camp was at all material times fully aware that both trailers were commercial vehicles and knew it when he went to the Ministry of Transportation one day in mid-December to get both trailers plated. Later in his evidence, Mr. Camp contradicted himself by saying that he may have registered the trailers on different days, with as long as a month between them.

[53.] Somehow, Mr. Camp was able to get plates without ownerships for either trailer and without a VIN for the dump trailer. Whatever the day or dates he registered the trailers, Mr. Camp testified that he registered both of them as “home-made” trailers. He did this because he knew that home-made trailers do not require either ownerships or VINs to be plated. He declared the trailers to be home-made knowing that they were not. In court, Mr. Camp justified his fraudulent misrepresentation to the licensing office on his stated intention of future customization of the trailers.

[54.] With respect to the skid steer, Mr. Camp testified at the low purchase price was due to unspecified repair work that needed to be done. Mr. Camp provided no details of any kind as to the purported deficiencies with the skid steer. His evidence that the skid steer was in poor shape is contradicted by his later evidence that when it was delivered, the machine “fired up” right away and, on demonstration, seemed to work very well. Furthermore, the photos of the Bobcat show a vehicle in excellent condition. It is also clear from the evidence of the Melrose supervisor that the Bobcat was in fit and ready condition.

[55.] The skid steer had very large and clear markings signifying that it belonged to Stephenson Rentals. While Mr. Taplay said it is common to buy “ex-fleet” machines, it stretches one’s credulity beyond the breaking point to believe that a business that sells its equipment would leave its identification and logos on it, leaving the public to believe that it still belonged to the seller. Mr. Camp should have had at least made inquiries about the Stephenson stickers, especially since he did not get any ownership papers with the skid steer. However, Mr. Camp was blithely content to buy the skid steer as is without any concern or inquiry.

[56.] By his evidence, Mr. Camp had regular and frequent contact with the seller by means of texts and phone calls between late November and early January, meaning that his contact information was immediately available to Mr. Camp and within his consciousness when he spoke to the police on January 12. His last contact with the seller was at the delivery and payment of the Bobcat less than two weeks before the police became involved. Mr. Camp and the seller met in person three separate times and exchanged intimate personal details including discussing their divorces. Before he spoke to the police at Taplay’s Mr. Camp had been warned by Mr. Taplay that the situation concerned his purchase of equipment that he now believed to be stolen. He had even sought out advice from a policeman friend of his before going to Taplay’s. Given these circumstances, I do not believe Mr. Camp when he told the police that he could not remember the name of the man he bought the equipment from.

[57.] With respect to his explanations to the police at Taplay’s residence including that he bought the property from a guy going out of business during a divorce, I do not find they raise a reasonable doubt. Mr. Camp was not found in possession of the property by the police. He came to Taplay’s residence after two calls from Mr. Taplay, both of which concerned the intercession by the police with the equipment, and after getting advice from a friend about what to do. Accordingly, when Mr. Camp first spoke to the police he had been fully aware for quite some time that they were investigating his property and he had ample time to consider what he would say when he met the police.

[58.] It was submitted that Mr. Camp had no reason to be suspicious of “Chico” because of his apparent honesty which was reinforced by his offer of a discount when confronted by Mr. Camp regarding defects with the dump trailer. I have already found that I do not believe Mr. Camp that there were any defects with the dump trailer. In addition, the willingness of “Chico” to lower what was already an unconscionably good price on the skid steer was a clear sign to be suspicious of the legality of the situation that Mr. Camp chose to ignore.

[59.] The evidence of good character evidence does not assist Mr. Camp in this case. The evidence reveals that his actions were inconsistent with a general reputation of integrity and honesty that he used to enjoy. He admitted that he was prepared to help a man he barely knew to defraud his wife by helping to surreptitiously dispose of what Mr. Camp said he believed to be matrimonial assets. Mr. Camp also admitted to knowingly making false representations to a government authority when getting licence plates for the trailers. He was untruthful with the police when he told them he did not know the seller’s name. Taken together, these facts fatally cripple the utility of his previous reputation for honesty and integrity.

[60.] Taking into account the discount for the supposedly defective dump trailer, Mr. Camp paid a total of $5,500 for three major pieces of construction equipment, each of which was in good working order. Based on the evidence regarding the values of the cargo trailer and the value of a used Bobcat, Mr. Camp would have reasonably expected to pay between $18 – 23,000 for just both the cargo trailer and skid skeer, yet paid a mere $5,000 for the two.

[61.] After carefully considering all of the evidence, I do not believe Mr. Camp that he didn’t know the property he bought was stolen, nor does his evidence raise a reasonable doubt. To the contrary, all of the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Camp was at a minimum willfully blind that the property was stolen. I find that Mr. Camp chose to ignore numerous red flags of suspicion were waving briskly and plainly in Mr. Camp’s face throughout his felonious purchases from “Chico.” These flags include such diverse elements as:

• Repeated purchases of valuable commercial equipment from someone whose full name he did not know and who had called Mr. Camp out of the blue;

• Buying valuable commercial equipment without obtaining ownership slips despite having knowledge and experience that these were necessary;

• Buying commercial equipment at what he knew to be unreasonably low prices given the nature and condition of each item as well as his experience and knowledge of prices of similar property;

• Buying a dump trailer with a missing VIN plate and no safety stickers; and

• Fraudulently misrepresenting the trailers to the Ministry of Transportation as home-made when he knew they were commercial.

[62.] On the whole of the evidence that I accept, I find that the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that John Camp was aware of the need to make inquiries about the origins of each piece of construction equipment but that he did not because he did not want to know the truth which was that each had been stolen when he bought them.

[63.] For all of these reasons, Mr. Camp is found guilty of all three charges. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY JUSTICE SCHWARZL

Richard H.K. Schwarzl,

Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice

[^1]: The model name is clearly visible in photo 8, being part of Exhibit #1.