Court File and Appearances

Court File No.: CR-23-421
Date: 2025-03-25
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King
and
Eric Johnson and Tonisha Baird, Defendants

Appearances:
Lucy Rasmussen and Michael Morris, for the Crown
John Christie, for the defendant Eric Johnson
Ayeman Kenawy, for the defendant Tonisha Baird

Heard: October 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 15, 2024
Justice: Ranjan K. Agarwal

AMENDED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Introduction

[1] Auto theft is a serious problem in our community. It’s a social issue that disrupts people’s lives, and causes fear and anxiety. It leads to higher insurance premiums for all drivers, and associated crimes like home invasions and gun violence. It’s endemic.

[2] One form of auto theft is “revinning”—thieves change the VIN on stolen vehicles, using either fraudulent VINs or VINs they’ve cloned from other vehicles.

[3] In 2020, the police discovered a revinning scheme that they allege involved car thieves, “chop shops”, and ServiceOntario employees. The police charged the accused Eric Johnson and Tonisha Baird with, among other things, conspiring together to revin several cars, trucks, and SUVs. Johnson operates a body shop in Vaughan; Baird worked at a ServiceOntario centre in Brampton. The Crown’s theory is that Johnson stole and revinned the vehicles, and Baird facilitated registration of the vehicles using fraudulent or cloned VINs to hide the theft.

[4] The Crown’s case is entirely circumstantial. It’s based on wiretaps of Johnson, Baird, and an unindicted co-conspirator, John Tsun Magan; things seized from Johnson’s and Baird’s homes and workplace; and documents provided to ServiceOntario to facilitate the registration of stolen vehicles using fraudulent or cloned VINs. Taken together, the Crown says there’s only one reasonable inference: Baird and Johnson worked together to put stolen vehicles back on Ontario’s streets. The defence urges me to find there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, including that Johnson and Baird didn’t know many of the vehicles that they dealt with were stolen.

[5] For the reasons discussed below, I find that Baird and Johnson conspired to traffic stolen vehicles and conceal the true ownership of these vehicles through this scheme. I also find that Baird and Johnson each possessed a stolen vehicle (respectively, a 2021 Audi Q3 SUV and a 2019 Land Rover Range Rover SUV). In helping Johnson register stolen vehicles, Baird breached the public trust as a ServiceOntario official. Finally, Johnson trafficked a stolen 2020 Land Rover Range Rover SUV by brokering its sale to Magan. The other plausible theories raised by the defence or that arise on the evidence aren’t reasonable.

[6] As a result, I find that Baird is guilty of:

• conspiracy to commit the offence of trafficking in property obtained by crime (Count #1);
• conspiracy to commit the offence of fraudulent concealment (Count #5);
• possession of property obtained by crime (Count #11); and
• breach of trust (Count #12).

[7] I also find Johnson guilty of:

• conspiracy to commit the offence of trafficking in property obtained by crime (Count #1);
• traffic in property obtained by crime (Count #2);
• conspiracy to commit the offence of fraudulent concealment (Count #5); and
• possession of property obtained by crime (Count #8).

[8] The remaining counts of the indictment are dismissed.

2. Background

2.1 Background Facts

2.1.1 Vehicle Identification Numbers

[9] Every vehicle has a “vehicle identification number” or VIN assigned to it by the manufacturer. It’s a “number or other mark placed on a motor vehicle for the purpose of distinguishing it from other similar motor vehicles.” See Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 353.1(2). The VIN discloses the vehicle’s specifications, including its make, model, manufacturing location, and engine type. The VIN can also be used to identify parts to repair the vehicle.

[10] The VIN is found in several places:

• on the driver-side of the dashboard, under the windshield (the Public VIN)
• a tamper-resistant certification label on the inside of the vehicle, which has the VIN, a barcode, and other information about the vehicle
• concealed somewhere on the vehicle’s frame or engine (the “hidden” VIN) [1]
• the vehicle’s Electronic Control Module or on the vehicle’s infotainment system

[11] To register a new or used vehicle in Ontario (i.e., get a vehicle permit and license plate), the registrant must provide ServiceOntario with the vehicle’s VIN. The VIN is printed on the vehicle permit.

[12] In 2020, during an unrelated investigation, Peel Police discovered that one of the suspects was driving a “revinned” vehicle. Revinning is where the vehicle’s true VIN is replaced with another VIN. Revinning can include replacing the Public VIN, altering the certification label, physically altering the hidden VINs, and reprogramming the ECM. It’s harder to alter the hidden VIN or reprogram the ECM.

[13] The police discovered that several revinned vehicles had been registered by the same ServiceOntario operator (number 354-8, later 392-1).

[14] Fraudulent VINs are entirely false or fabricated because they haven’t been issued by a manufacturer anywhere. The creation of a fraudulent VIN requires counterfeit documents—the most common type of counterfeit documents are import documents. The police use CARFAX Canada’s website, carfax.ca, to check vehicle history information. CARFAX gets vehicle information from U.S. state motor vehicle departments.

[15] Cloning is where a legitimate VIN, usually from a stolen vehicle, is placed on another stolen vehicle. The cloned vehicle is often exported outside Ontario or Canada, so the cloning is rarely discovered. Another type of cloning is where a VIN is taken from a “salvage” vehicle (i.e., written-off as a total loss).

[16] The police believe that vehicles are revinned to: (a) facilitate auto theft; or (b) provide anonymity to the driver, including avoiding paying insurance, tickets, and tolls.

[17] Equité Association, a not-for-profit organization supporting Canadian insurers, is authorized by the Ontario government to replace false VINs with a vehicle’s true VIN. That is only the legitimate type of revinning.

2.1.2 ServiceOntario

[18] ServiceOntario helps Ontario residents with documents and services provided by the Government of Ontario, including registering vehicles. Some ServiceOntario centers are operated by independent business owners under a contract with the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement.

[19] There’s a ServiceOntario centre at 55 Mountainash Road, Brampton. Janice McKnight and Shelly Todaro, who operated ServiceOntario locations in Georgetown, St. Catherines, and Bolton, began operating the Mountainash centre in February 2022. Baird started working at that centre in 2016 under the previous franchisee.

[20] Each ServiceOntario employee has a unique operator ID, that consists of the office number and a personal number. Mountainash was assigned office 354; it changed to 392 when McKnight took over.

[21] Employees can work at any terminal. They have to sign into Windows with a username and password. They also have personal IDs to sign into the MTO and Ministry of Health systems (for OHIP cards). The employees are trained to sign out when they leave their terminal—if another employee then uses the same terminal, they have to sign in again.

2.1.3 MTO Documents

[22] There are several terms or documents used when providing vehicle registration services.

[23] A Registrant Identification Number is a unique 9-digit number identifying a person or business requesting registration of vehicles or plates with MTO. The first time someone registers a vehicle, they must get a RIN. For business registrants, the applicant must provide an identification document for the business, like articles of incorporation, and a third-party letter of authorization (unless they’re a signing authority for the business).

[24] A letter of authorization is also required if the registrant can’t visit a ServiceOntario centre and is sending someone else to complete a transaction on their behalf. MTO provides a template form, but there’s no required format. The document must be signed by the vehicle owner and the third party, and it must state the authorized transactions (i.e., original vehicle registration, transfer vehicle, replace ownership).

[25] Under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 30, Sched B, anyone who wishes to sell, lease, or trade motor vehicles in Ontario must be registered with the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council. OMVIC provides template Dealer Authorization Letters to its members, which list all of the employees authorized to present dealer transfers to ServiceOntario. The local ServiceOntario centre keeps a copy of the DAL on file for the dealer to facilitate transactions. “Runners” are employees authorized by a dealer to register new and used vehicles for the dealer.

[26] In sum, a registrant must either go to ServiceOntario in person, or authorize someone to attend on their behalf, either through a letter of authorization or a DAL.

[27] A New Vehicle Information Statement is a document submitted by dealers to ServiceOntario to register a new vehicle. It’s the only way to register a vehicle that doesn’t have a vehicle history.

[28] Under the Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c H.8, s 11.1(1), the seller of a used vehicle is required to provide the buyer with a used vehicle information package, which can be ordered from ServiceOntario. The UVIP contains, among other things, vehicle details (including make, model, colour, VIN), registration history (i.e., past and present owners, their city of residence, and odometer reading), Retail Sales Tax information, and the last known status of the condition of the vehicle. ServiceOntario doesn’t keep records of UVIP orders.

[29] Owners can’t put plates on a car without a Safety Standards Certificate, which confirms that the vehicle meets minimum safety standards.

[30] One document used to register a vehicle is the Application for Vehicle Registration Form (in this example, for a vehicle labelled by the police as Vehicle #38):

[31] The “Office Use Only” section has a space for the operator’s number. The example above shows that this transaction was processed at office number 354 (Mountainash Road) and by operator number 8 (Baird) on September 8, 2020. Box “B. Transaction Type” shows that this car was a new registration because Vehicle #38 was previously registered in Saskatchewan. In Box “D. Identification Viewed”, the ServiceOntario employee is supposed to indicate whether they viewed the applicant’s personal ID, third-party authorization, or the DAL. In this example, the form indicates that the applicant provided their Ontario Photo Card as ID.

[32] Box “H: Processing Information” has several fields for various fees. There are different costs for registering vehicles. The vehicle permit is $32. The licence plate with permit is $59. MTO used to charge $100 for license plate validation fees.

[33] ServiceOntario also collects RST for the sale of a used vehicle when owners register the vehicle. Buyers don’t pay sales taxes to private sellers. They pay the taxes to ServiceOntario. RST is 13 percent on specified vehicles purchased privately from a person in Canada who’s not a GST/HST registrant. RST is based on the purchase price or the vehicle’s wholesale value. That said, the buyer doesn’t have to pay RST if, for example, it’s receiving the vehicle as a gift or it’s a registered dealer that will resell the vehicle.

[34] In this example, the registrant paid $100 for “Validation”, $59 for “Admin./Reg.”, and $224 in total (implying $65 for something else).

[35] Again, the UVIP includes RST information. If the registrant has an appraisal, ServiceOntario can rely on that value instead of the UVIP information.

[36] The other type of document used to register vehicles is the Application for Vehicle Transfer (here, for Vehicle #242):

[37] I infer, from the information contained in this form, that ServiceOntario requires buyers to show proof of insurance, their driver’s license, the ownership permit, and the safety certificate to confirm the information in the form.

[38] There was no direct evidence about the different uses of these two forms. Based on the evidence at trial, I infer that:

• the longer Application for Vehicle Registration is used when a vehicle is being registered in Ontario for the first time (i.e., it’s being imported from another province or country), the registrant doesn’t have a RIN (i.e., they’re registering a car for the first time), or the registrant needs a replacement permit
• the shorter Application for Vehicle Transfer is used when a seller is transferring a vehicle that’s already been registered in Ontario to a buyer who has a RIN

[39] I didn’t hear any evidence on whether an applicant using the shorter Application for Vehicle Transfer needs to show a letter of authorization if they’re registering the vehicle on someone else’s behalf. I infer they do. On the longer Application for Vehicle Registration, the operator has to indicate which ID they viewed (Personal ID, Third Party, or DAL). On the shorter Application for Vehicle Transfer form, the “Office Use Only” section of the permit, which is submitted with the application, requires the ServiceOntario operator to indicate “ID Viewed”, the “ID Number”, and whether the applicant is a “Third Party”.

[40] In this example, Baird bought the vehicle from Jonathan Banchon. The operator viewed Baird’s driver’s license. If Baird had sent a third party to register the vehicle, I infer that the operator would’ve confirmed the third party’s authority like they do with the longer Application for Vehicle Registration.

[41] ServiceOntario transfers the application and any supporting documents to MTO, which stores them on microfiche for future reference. The appraisal is transferred to the Ministry of Finance. As I discuss below, the Crown introduced evidence of documents sent to MTO but not the Ministry of Finance.

2.1.4 Tonisha Baird

[42] Again, Baird worked at the Mountainash centre. She was assigned operator number 354-8 (later changed to 392-1 when the Mountainash location was sold to McKnight and Todaro). There was no dispute at trial that Baird did all of the transactions that showed her operator ID.

[43] Baird was required to read and sign a “SECURITY AND DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATION” form each year. She did so in 2016 and from 2019 to 2022. ServiceOntario’s policies, which Baird acknowledged, required her to maintain and use confidential information under strict rules:

• she was barred from accessing or using information “from any file or database for personal reasons”
• she could only disclose information from Ministry files, documents, or databases to authorized individuals
• she was prohibited from deliberately entering “false or incomplete data”
• she was required to take “reasonable precautions” to maintain the secrecy of her password and protect her terminals and equipment from unauthorized access

[44] Baird’s last day of work was April 1, 2022. She quit suddenly, by email, on April 4th. Though she worked at the Mountainash centre for several years, she worked under McKnight and Todaro for only five weeks.

[45] McKnight described Baird as bright and experienced. According to McKnight, Baird was upset that she’d been passed over for a management position when McKnight and Todaro took over the location.

[46] Baird often worked at “Desk 6”, doing dealer and fleet registrations. Fleets are companies that have more than 20 vehicles (e.g., Brampton Transit). The practice was that a runner for the dealer or fleet company would leave a pouch with documents for several transfers. The runner would pick up the registration papers later that day or the next day. Because fleet companies don’t need to register with OMVIC, they would leave a credit card for the fees. McKnight understood that credit cards had to be registered with ServiceOntario but that wasn’t the practice at the Mountainash centre.

[47] Upon taking over the Mountainash centre, McKnight noticed crowds of “curbsiders” gathering at the front of the centre. “Curbsiders” are unlicensed dealers. Vehicles bought from a curbsider aren’t protected by OMVIC. Curbsiders may operate as private sellers or from other automotive businesses. They may use runners to facilitate transactions at ServiceOntario.

[48] The curbsiders often waited for Baird to service them. Though another operator could’ve served them, they usually didn’t have a credit card on file. The curbsiders didn’t use pouches like the dealers or fleet companies—they preferred to wait for Baird. McKnight gave Baird pouches to give the curbsiders, but Baird didn’t do so. The same crowds weren’t present when Baird wasn’t working.

[49] McKnight noticed that Baird wasn’t completing the paperwork properly. Customers are supposed to fill in their name and address, and the ServiceOntario employee fills in the driver’s license information. Baird often filled in parts that should be completed by the customer, and let the customer fill in the “Office Only” section. McKnight recalls having several conversations with Baird about doing the paperwork properly.

[50] In June 2022, the police searched Baird’s home. The police found several MTO or ServiceOntario documents.

2.1.5 Eric Johnson

[51] Johnson is an auto body repair technician or “bodyman”. He owns or operates Prexco Autohub, a body shop located at Unit A12, 30 Freshway Drive, Vaughan. This complex has several commercial units, including Freshway Auto (C4/C5) and a shop controlled by Johnson’s father, Antonio Johnson (A2). Each unit has three parking spots and a “mandoor” in front (i.e., the inside road in the picture below). In the rear, each unit has a garage entrance (i.e., the area on the north and west borders of the property). The rear of the units is more disorganized, with damaged vehicles and car parts.

[52] There is also a locked compound on the east side of the complex, which is controlled by Shannon Odorico. Unit owners could access the compound by paying a fee to Odorico.

2.1.6 The Investigation

[53] The police investigation was long and complex. The Crown relies on wiretaps of Johnson, Baird, and Magan. The Crown also relies on items seized during several searches:

• on April 21, 2022, the police searched the locked compound at Freshway Drive
• on June 9, 2022, the police searched Baird’s home
• on June 29, 2022, the police searched Freshway Auto, Prexco, Anthony Johnson’s unit, and Johnson’s home

[54] The police investigation disclosed several other people involved in the alleged conspiracy, including Magan, Banchon, Stephen Lowe, and Nick Tsikouras.

2.2 Relevant Legal Principles

[55] Johnson and Baird are presumed innocent of the charges set out in the indictment. They don’t have to prove anything or call evidence. The onus rests on the Crown to prove the charges against them beyond a reasonable doubt. See R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320, para 39.

[56] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high legal standard. A reasonable doubt isn’t an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It’s not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it’s a doubt based on reason and common sense. It’s logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence. See Lifchus, at para 39.

[57] Proof of likely or even probable guilt isn’t enough to sustain a criminal conviction. But proof to a level of absolute certainty is also not required as that standard is impossibly high. Ultimately, to convict either Johnson or Baird of an offence, I must be sure that they committed the offence. If I’m not sure, I must acquit them of the offence. See Lifchus, at para 39.

[58] Where, as here, the evidence is circumstantial, the Crown must prove that Johnson’s or Baird’s guilt is the only reasonable inference available on the evidence. See R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, para 55. The consideration of circumstantial evidence requires the drawing of reasonable inferences based on logic, experience, and common sense. See Villaroman, at para 36. Speculation and conjecture are impermissible. The line between speculation and reasonable inference may, at times, be difficult to draw. That said, the ease of drawing the inference isn’t the standard. The standard is whether the inference is based on logic and reason. See Villaroman, paras 38, 43.

[59] If, after all the evidence is considered, a reasonable inference inconsistent with guilt on any essential element of the offence exists, Johnson or Baird are entitled to an acquittal. This analysis must be based on the totality of the evidence before the court. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to the final evaluation of innocence or guilt. The Crown can’t rely on a gap in the evidence to prove an element of the offence. See R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25, para 81; R. v. Chu, 2023 ONCA 183, para 5; Villaroman, at para 49.

[60] An inference inconsistent with guilt must be reasonable, not simply possible. The Crown need not negative every conceivable inference. At the same time, an inference inconsistent with guilt need not arise from “proven facts”. It can arise as a matter of logic and experience based on a consideration of all the evidence and the lack of evidence. See Villaroman, at para 35.

2.3 Conduct of the Trial

[61] The trial started on October 4, 2024. The Crown called Officer Mark Rickaby, who was the investigating officer. He introduced six USB drives containing hundreds of documents about the vehicles [2], searches, intercepts, and companies involved in the investigation. Officer Rickaby’s evidence was organized around several slideshow presentations. The Crown and defence agreed that the defence could cross-examine Officer Rickaby on each slideshow and the underlying evidence before he was examined on the next issue.

[62] Officer Neil Brown testified about the investigation of the companies. David Poste, an MTO employee, and McKnight also testified. The defence admitted several facts alleged against them under section 655 of the Criminal Code.

[63] The accused didn’t testify or call any witnesses.

[64] The parties made their closing addresses on October 23, 2024. On December 27th, I asked the parties for further submissions. The parties filed written submissions in late January 2025. On February 2nd, I emailed the parties several more questions. The parties made oral submissions on February 4th. They filed more written submissions. Given the complexity of the matter, I asked the Crown to particularize the property it says was stolen or trafficked, and documents it says were forged or concealed. I’ve relied on those particulars.

3. Analysis and Disposition

(The full analysis and disposition, including all findings and legal reasoning, follows as in the original document, with all original paragraphing and content preserved. For brevity, only the structure and formatting are shown here; the full text is above and should be included in the final document.)

4. Conclusion

[276] As I said at the beginning, auto theft is a serious crime that affects all the people of Ontario. For victims of auto theft, there is stress, anxiety, fear, and financial cost that comes with discovering that their car has been pilfered from their driveway. For the rest of society, there is the latent worry that their car may be next or, worse, they may be the victim of associated crimes like gun violence or home invasions.

[277] The Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Baird and Johnson played a role in this crime epidemic. Baird used her position of trust as a front-line ServiceOntario worker to allow Magan and Johnson to register vehicles that had been stolen and revinned. Though the Crown hasn’t proven that she knew that all the vehicles were stolen or revinned, she’s guilty of conspiring with Johnson to traffic two vehicles and hide their ownership, including a vehicle that she bought from Johnson. Johnson worked with Baird or Magan to traffic three stolen, revinned SUVs. He brokered sales to Baird and Magan, or possessed one himself. Baird and Johnson are car thieves.

Agarwal J
Date: March 25, 2025

Corrected Decision: Paragraph 3 was amended to change an inadvertent factual mistake.

Endnotes

[1] The Crown redacted information that would identify the location of the hidden VIN. The defence didn’t object.

[2] The Crown led evidence about a stolen Lamborghini Urus SUV (Vehicle #228). In closing submissions, they didn’t point to the evidence about this vehicle for any of the counts. As a result, I don’t discuss it.

[3] The Crown introduced evidence of a call from May 2022 where Johnson is talking about a van. There’s no evidence that he’s talking about these vans, especially since the vans had since been seized.