Brandon Harder
Regina Leader-Post
After all evidence was called in the trial of two alleged Regina jewelry thieves, a judge was presented with vastly different takes about what it says.
Provincial court Judge Marylynne Beaton was left to decide whether it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Waylon Tourangeau and Rylan Macphee were the masked figures who pulled what was termed a “smash and grab” at Ben Moss Jewellers on Aug. 8, 2025.
Police estimated the value of the stolen jewelry at upwards of $200,000.
Before their trial opened Monday in Regina, both men pleaded not guilty to charges of robbery and wearing a disguise with intent to commit an offence. Tourangeau originally faced more charges but those were stayed prior to the trial.
Because the thieves’ identities were hidden by their clothing and masks, the Crown’s case relies on what’s known as circumstantial evidence. That means Beaton could only convict them if their guilt is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence presented.
On Monday, Crown prosecutor Matthew Dahl asked the judge to look at security footage that purportedly shows the accused men (and a woman not on trial).
An employee of the jewelry store identified the accused men shown on video as people who (with a woman) visited the store a few hours before the masked thieves rushed in and smashed display cases.
She characterized their browsing behaviour as strange and Dahl suggested this was evidence the group was “scoping” the location.
The people alleged to comprise that group, including the accused men, were seen utilizing a black SUV on video footage from outside a McDonald’s restaurant and also at Northgate Mall, where the theft occurred.
Dahl argued that the judge could be sure, based on the SUV’s unique characteristics such as damage, that this was the same vehicle used by the thieves, as seen on another clip from the mall’s exterior.
Nathan Metivier, the defence lawyer representing Macphee, argued the Crown hadn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt the person said to be his undisguised client on camera was, in fact, Macphee — much less one of the masked individuals.
Metivier further stated that even if the judge did believe his client was seen with the black SUV, mere association with the vehicle couldn’t prove guilt. He pointed to the time that passed between the footage showing an undisguised group with the SUV and the robbery.
He said there was some 90 minutes when “anything could have happened,” and the court couldn’t be sure who was in the vehicle by the time the masked figures got out.
Defence lawyer Doug Andrews said he adopted Metivier’s arguments with regard to his client, Tourangeau.
Andrews quipped: “If the car was charged here, you may well find it guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Not conceding his client is the person shown in clips where the group was not disguised, Andrews suggested the Crown’s case amounted to an assertion that because Tourangeau was at McDonald’s with a group of people earlier, he must’ve been involved.
He submitted that a conviction on this premise would be “dangerous.”
If the judge finds that either or both of the men stole the jewelry, she must still determine if what was done would legally constitute a robbery, as opposed to just a theft.
The distinction, which can be met multiple ways, essentially has to do with the use of violence or weapons.
Dahl pointed at the use of what he argued were hatchets and the speed and aggression with which the men rushed in and smashed cabinets.
However, the defence lawyers argued the actions of the thieves did not meet the criteria, as they seemed focused on stealing and did not really interact with employees.
After closing arguments ended Monday, Beaton was expected to deliver her decision at a later date.
bharder@postmedia.com
