New trial ordered in chop shop case
The 2015 conviction of a Niagaraon-the-Lake salvage yard owner accused of running a luxury chop shop has been set aside and a new trial ordered.
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled the trial judge made an error in the case against George Tsigirlash – who was sentenced to four years in prison in September 2015 on more than 40 counts.
“In my view the error here was neither harmless nor trivial,” the three-judge panel wrote in a decision released Aug. 9.
“The trial judge ought to have determined each count on the basis of the evidence that was led related to that count. Instead, he decided each count on the basis of evidence related to that count and to 46 other counts.”
Tsigirlash, who owned Auto Enterprises Inc., was charged in June 2011 after a police investigation into a large-scale chop shop operation that hacked up expensive cars from as far away as Windsor and Barrie. Police found vehicles and parts at three Niagara-on-the-Lake sites including pieces of Mercedes, BMWs, Porches and Lexus.
Tsigirlash was charged with 47 counts and convicted on 42 — 40 counts of possession of stolen property and two counts of fraud over $5,000.
The charges related to the three locations — the Auto Enterprises premises on Lincoln Avenue and two other properties where Tsigirlash was alleged to have stored inventory.
The appeal’s court said a major issue at trial was whether Tsigirlash knew that the vehicles and parts were stolen. His position was that he did not know and attributed any stolen property to a former business associate.
Tsigirlash also denied having any connection to the other two properties.
In a decision released on Aug. 9, the Ontario Court of Appeal found trial Judge James Ramsay erred in his approach to similar fact evidence.
The decision said the trial judge did not only analyze specific events relating to each charge, but came to a verdict based on the totality of the evidence on all charges.
The appellate court said the judge should not have done that without a request by the Crown. The onus would have been on the Crown to show why the evidence should be treated that way, giving the defence an opportunity to respond.
The Crown argued on appeal that the trial judge didn’t err because the possession of each stolen vehicle or part was evidence as to whether Tsigirlash was running an illegal chop shop.
The Crown also argued that in a multi-count, judge-alone trial there is “minimal risk of prejudice” arising from the use of evidence across counts.
But the appellate court ruled that already-admitted evidence can only be used on the count to which it relates.
“In other words, evidence against an accused on one count of an indictment may not be used to prove the guilt of the accused on another count unless the counts arise out of the same events,” the decision reads.