Simon's Legal Resources

Criminal - Possession of Property Obtained by Crime

. R. v. Brahimi

In R. v. Brahimi (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a defendant's criminal appeal, here while considering the form of mens rea required for the offence of 'possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000':

[2] The Crown concedes that the trial judge erred in law in proceeding on the basis that recklessness can satisfy the mens rea for this offence. Proof of actual knowledge or wilful blindness is required: R. v. Anga, 1991 CarswellOnt 2409 (C.A.); R. v. Sandhu (1989), 1989 CanLII 7102 (ON CA), 50 C.C.C.(3d) 492 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 497; R. v. Harms, 2020 BCCA 242, 393 C.C.C. (3d) 133, at para. 30.

[3] The Crown argues that the convictions can be upheld because the findings of fact made by the trial judge satisfy wilful blindness.

[4] We disagree. The trial judge posited three alternative scenarios of fact on which, in his view, the appellant could be convicted. At least one of the three scenarios was based on recklessness, rather than wilful blindness. Because the trial judge incorrectly believed that recklessness could satisfy the mens rea for the offences charged, he did not make findings of fact on which of the three scenarios he found was proven.