B.C. man who used Bobcat as ‘weapon' against homeless people has appeal dismissed

CTV News

2 days ago

A B.C. man found guilty of assault with a weapon for using a skid-steer Bobcat to chase two homeless people off his lawn – injuring one of them – has lost an appeal of his conviction, according to a recent court decision.
William John Mcrae was found guilty of assault with a weapon and dangerous driving in provincial court last year, and the ruling on his appeal was posted online Wednesday.
Justice Steven Wilson's reasons begin by recounting the incident that led to Mcrae's arrest, explaining that a homeless couple 'carrying all of their worldly possessions' stopped on a path adjacent to Mcrae's lawn while seeking out shade on a hot day in August of 2022.
Mcrae called Vernon city bylaw officers who told him to contact the police, according to the decision, which notes he did not follow that direction.
'The appellant decided to deal with matters by himself. He initially told them to leave before turning on his sprinklers to soak the couple. When that did not have the desired effect, the appellant, who owned a landscaping business, went to get his Bobcat and put an eight-foot-wide bucket on the front of it before driving out towards the couple,' the judge wrote.
'He initially banged the bucket on the ground to encourage them to move more quickly. He then used the Bobcat to scoop up the couple's possessions and push them down the path in front of a neighbouring property.'
The couple tried to stop Mcrae by yelling and waving their arms but were unsuccessful. The man – who the judge described as 'upset, in part because his belongings were damaged' – cut some flowers out of Mcrae's garden.
'In response, the appellant drove back to their possessions and ran over them,' the decision said.
Mcrae challenged his conviction, which came after a four-day trial, on several grounds – mainly taking issue with the judge's approach to the evidence.
One error Mcrae alleged the trial judge made was failing to adequately consider the possibility the female complainant fell to the ground as a result of heatstroke and not after being struck by the Bobcat. Mcrae argued the judge 'reversed the burden of proof' when dismissing this alternate theory of what took place, shifting the onus onto the accused to prove his innocence when the onus was on the Crown to prove his guilt.
Wilson dismissed this argument.
'The trial judge did not require the appellant to prove the third instance of heat stroke to draw an inference of innocence. Instead, the trial judge found that the evidence as a whole did not support the inference that she collapsed again due to heat stroke and, that even if it did, that the evidence as a whole established she was still hit by the Bobcat,' he wrote.
'Thus, the trial judge found that there was no reasonable doubt as to the appellant's innocence, even after considering the appellant's heat stroke theory.'
The appeal decision noted that to convict on the assault with a weapon charge, the trial judge did not necessarily need to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman was actually struck – although in this case, the lower court found she was knocked down and injured. 'Threats by way of gestures' is also a 'path to conviction' on the charge of assault with a weapon, the decision explained.
Another ground of Mcrae's appeal focused on 'disputing the alternative path to conviction,' the judge wrote.
Mcrae argued the trial judge made an error when saying a conviction would have been possible 'on (Mcrae's) evidence alone' even if the woman had not been struck by the Bobcat.
'The appellant's argument is that his evidence was only that he wished to intimidate (the couple) and to strike fear in them, but from a distance,' Wilson wrote.
'The appellant argues that based on his own evidence there was never an actual threat that he would hit them, and that scaring and intimidating is insufficient to ground a conviction.'
Again, Wilson found the trial judge's conclusions were reached after considering the evidence as a whole, and no legal error was made.
'It is important to review the reasons for judgment as a whole, as opposed to criticizing certain sentences or phrases,' the decision said.
Wilson dismissed the appeal entirely, finding no errors were made by the trial judge.
'The trial judge made findings of fact based upon his overall review of the evidence he accepted and the evidence he rejected, and his findings are entitled to deference,' the decision concluded.