Taking motor vehicle or vessel or found therein without consent
335 (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), every one who, without the consent of the owner, takes a motor vehicle or vessel with intent to drive, use, navigate or operate it or cause it to be driven, used, navigated or operated, or is an occupant of a motor vehicle or vessel knowing that it was taken without the consent of the owner, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Exception
(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to an occupant of a motor vehicle or vessel who, on becoming aware that it was taken without the consent of the owner, attempted to leave the motor vehicle or vessel, to the extent that it was feasible to do so, or actually left the motor vehicle or vessel.
Definition of vessel
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), vessel has the same meaning as in section 320.11.
Annotations | French
- Section 335
- “There is nothing constitutionally wrong” with section 335. The section does not infringe on an individual’s right to life, liberty or security of the person. Nor does it offend the presumption of innocence: R v PH, 2000 CanLII 5063 (ON CA) at paras 9, 17.
- This section criminalizes what is sometimes described as joy-riding, that is the taking or being the occupant of a motor vehicle that has been taken, without the owner’s consent. Whereas theft contrary to section 334 relates to the taking of ‘anything’, section 335 relates to the taking of automobiles: R v Lafrance,1973 CanLII 35 (SCC); R v Dunn, 2013 ONCA 539 at para 64 ; R v Tschetter, 2009 ABPC 125 at para 110.; Regina v Wilkins, 1964 CanLII 307 (ON CA).
- The offence of joy-riding can be made out in two ways. First, the accused takes a person’s motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. Second, the accused rides along with a third party who has taken the rightful owner’s motor vehicle without their consent. Regina v Wilkins, 1964 CanLII 307 (ON CA).
- Where the accused is the occupant of the motor vehicle, the Crown is required to “establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the occupant (…) knows that the vehicle was taken without the consent of the owner”: R v PH, 2000 CanLII 5063 (ON CA) at para. 17.
- The offence is made out regardless of whether or not the accused intended to deprive the rightful owner of their vehicle permanently, and regardless whether taking the vehicle was a joke. In other words, it is not a defence to say “I was planning to return the vehicle” or that taking the vehicle was just a prank or joke: Regina v Wilkins, 1964 CanLII 307 (ON CA); R v Lafrance, 1973 CanLII 35 (SCC).