A charge of Possessing Stolen Property does not require that the accused was the person who originally stole the item. Under Canadian law, simply having property in your possession while knowing, or being wilfully blind to the fact, that it was obtained through a criminal offence is itself a crime. The charge is commonly laid alongside theft, fraud, break and enter, and robbery charges, but it can also stand on its own, and it carries the same potential for a permanent criminal record and jail time as the offence that produced the stolen goods in the first place. For residents of Newmarket and York Region, the circumstances that lead to this charge are wide-ranging, from purchasing electronics at a price that seems too good to be true, to being found in a vehicle with property linked to a recent break-in.

Section 354(1) of the Criminal Code provides that everyone commits an offence who has in their possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 354(1)). The penalties are set out in section 355 and are tiered according to the value of the property involved. The offence is classified as a crime of dishonesty, which means a conviction can affect far more than the sentence imposed by the court.

The Legal Elements of the Offence

To secure a conviction for Possessing Stolen Property, the Crown must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, the accused must have been in possession of property or its proceeds. Second, the property must have been obtained by or derived from the commission of an indictable offence. Third, the accused must have known that the property was criminally obtained, or been wilfully blind to that fact (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 354(1); R v Beaver, [1957] SCR 531).

The law recognizes three forms of possession for the purposes of this offence. Personal possession exists where the accused has physical custody and control of the property. Constructive possession exists where the accused knowingly has the property in another person’s custody or in any place for the accused’s use or benefit. Joint possession exists where two or more persons share knowledge, consent, and some measure of control over the property (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 4(3)). Section 358 further provides that the offence is complete when a person has, alone or jointly with another, possession of or control over the property, or when the person aids in concealing or disposing of it.

The knowledge requirement is the element most frequently contested at trial. The Crown does not need to prove that the accused knew the precise offence by which the property was obtained. It is sufficient to prove that the accused knew the property was stolen or was obtained through some form of criminal activity. Wilful blindness, which the Supreme Court of Canada has defined as a state of mind where the accused suspected the property was criminally obtained but deliberately chose not to inquire further, is treated as the legal equivalent of actual knowledge (R v Jorgensen, [1995] 4 SCR 55; R v Vinokurov, 2001 ABCA 113).

There is also a statutory presumption that assists the Crown in motor vehicle cases. Under section 354(2), evidence that a person has in their possession a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part with a wholly or partially removed or obliterated vehicle identification number is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the vehicle was obtained by crime.

Penalties and Consequences

The penalties for possessing stolen property are tiered according to the value of the property involved. Where the value of the property exceeds $5,000, or where the property is a testamentary instrument, the offence is hybrid with a maximum of ten years’ imprisonment on indictment and two years less a day on summary conviction (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 355(a)). Where the value does not exceed $5,000, the offence is hybrid with a maximum of two years’ imprisonment on indictment and two years less a day on summary conviction (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 355(b)). There are no mandatory minimum sentences, and all sentencing dispositions remain available, including discharges.

Beyond the sentence itself, a conviction commonly brings the following consequences:

• A permanent criminal record registered on the CPIC database as a crime of dishonesty, which is one of the most damaging categories for employment, professional licensing, and volunteer background checks
• Difficulties entering the United States, where the offence is classified as a crime involving moral turpitude and the indictable maximum exceeds the one-year petty offence exemption threshold
• Immigration consequences for non-citizens, particularly where the value exceeds $5,000 and the ten-year maximum triggers inadmissibility on grounds of serious criminality under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
• A potential restitution order requiring the offender to compensate the victim for the value of the property
• Forfeiture of the property itself, which the court may order returned to the rightful owner

Where the charge is laid alongside theft, fraud, or break and enter, the combined effect of multiple convictions can be substantially greater than any single charge on its own. A pattern of property-related offending is treated as a significant aggravating factor at sentencing, and courts in those circumstances are more likely to impose custodial sentences.

Defences and Strategic Considerations

A Possessing Stolen Property charge can be defended on several fronts, and the knowledge element in particular creates significant opportunities for the defence. The Crown must prove that the accused knew the property was criminally obtained or was wilfully blind to that fact, and in many cases the evidence on this point is circumstantial and open to challenge.

The most direct defence is the absence of knowledge. If the accused genuinely did not know that the property was stolen and had no reason to suspect it, the mens rea of the offence is not established. Purchasing an item at a reasonable price, through a legitimate channel, and without any indication that it was stolen may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to investigate the provenance of every item they acquire, though courts will consider whether the circumstances were suspicious enough to put a reasonable person on notice.

Colour of right is another recognized defence. If the accused honestly believed they had a legal entitlement to the property, the knowledge element is not satisfied. This can arise in disputes over ownership, shared property, or items that the accused believed were gifted, lent, or abandoned. The belief does not need to be legally correct; it must only be honestly held.

A defence lawyer reviewing the disclosure will examine questions such as:

• Whether the Crown can prove that the accused had knowledge, consent, and control over the property, particularly in constructive or joint possession cases where others had access to the same vehicle, residence, or storage location
• Whether the circumstances of the accused’s acquisition of the property are consistent with an innocent purchase or receipt, or whether they support an inference of knowledge or wilful blindness
• Whether the property has been positively linked to a specific criminal offence, and whether the chain of evidence connecting the property to that offence is reliable
• Whether the search that produced the property was conducted in compliance with the accused’s Charter rights under sections 8 and 9, and whether any evidence should be excluded under section 24(2)

For first offences involving modest values, many of these cases can be resolved without a criminal record. Diversion programs, alternative measures, and sentencing dispositions such as absolute or conditional discharges are realistic outcomes depending on the circumstances. Where the charge is laid alongside a theft charge, the Crown will often agree to withdraw the possession charge as part of a resolution on the theft, which can simplify the accused’s record and reduce collateral consequences.

Frequently Asked Questions

A charge of Possessing Stolen Property may seem less serious than the offence that produced the stolen goods, but a conviction carries the same potential for a permanent criminal record, the same classification as a crime of dishonesty, and the same risk of consequences for employment, travel, and immigration. Yet the Crown must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, and the knowledge requirement in particular creates real opportunities for the defence. Many of these cases can be resolved without a criminal record through discharges, diversion, or a negotiated withdrawal.

Anyone facing this charge in Newmarket or elsewhere in York Region should speak with a criminal defence lawyer before their first court appearance. Early legal advice makes the difference between a resolution that protects the accused’s record and one that leaves a permanent mark. The sooner the case is assessed, the more options are available.