R. v. Bartram (J.L.), 2015 ABPC 249

JudgePharo, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateNovember 26, 2015
Citations2015 ABPC 249;[2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.051

R. v. Bartram (J.L.), [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.051

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. DE.051

Her Majesty the Queen v. Johnathon Lesley Bartram

(151061058P1; 2015 ABPC 249)

Indexed As: R. v. Bartram (J.L.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Pharo, P.C.J.

November 26, 2015.


The accused was found asleep in a travel trailer owned by the Burns, and located in a private campground on land they owned on the Bow River. A stolen pickup truck was later located about four kilometres away from the campground, stuck on a rock in a ravine. There was a tool box of stolen tools in the back of the pickup truck. When he talked to Ms. Burns after she woke him up, he said the truck he had been in was stuck on a rock, but it was a different truck than the stolen pickup which was located nearby. The accused had ransacked through two trailers, and the seasonal cabin nearby in the same campground. He had consumed some beer, water and food obtained from the cabin and trailer, and taken some items from the trailers and placed them in his backpack. Those items he put in his backpack included ammunition, bear spray, food, a pot and three filleting knives. The accused was on release conditions at the time, including to keep the peace and not to have any weapons. He was charged with numerous offences. The accused raised the defence of necessity to the charges arising from the three break-ins, and stated that the Burns consented to him using their property because he was in an emergency situation. He also disputed whether the three structures were dwellings.

The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the defences and convicted the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 80

General principles - Res judicata (multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded) - Circumstances when defence may be raised - See paragraph 76.

Criminal Law - Topic 203

Common law defences - Necessity - See paragraphs 30 to 45 and 78 to 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 1123

Weapons - General - What constitutes a weapon - See paragraph 80.

Criminal Law - Topic 1662

Offences against property - Theft - Defences - Taking of property with the consent of the owner - See paragraphs 46 to 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 1801

Offences against property - Breaking and entering - Intention - See paragraphs 49 and 50.

Criminal Law - Topic 1803

Offences against property - Breaking and entering - What constitutes breaking and entering - See paragraphs 46 to 48 and 56 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 1805

Offences against property - Breaking and entering - Dwelling house - What constitutes - See paragraphs 51 to 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 1869

Offences against property - Possession of stolen property - Evidence and proof - General - See paragraphs 70 to 75.

Criminal Law - Topic 1873

Offences against property - Possession of stolen goods - Evidence and proof - Proof of ownership of goods - See paragraphs 61 to 69.


C. Doyle, for the Crown;

B. Plumer, for the accused.

This case was heard by Pharo, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on November 26, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT