Closing arguments were completed Monday in the trial of two alleged Regina jewelry thieves, leaving Judge Marylynne Beaton to decide whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Waylon Tourangeau and Rylan Macphee both pleaded not guilty to charges of robbery and wearing a disguise with intent to commit an offence in connection with a smash-and-grab theft at Ben Moss Jewellers on August 8, 2025.
Crown Relies on Circumstantial Evidence
Because the thieves wore masks and clothing that concealed their identities, the Crown’s case depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. Judge Beaton can only convict if the defendants’ guilt is the only reasonable conclusion from the evidence presented. Police estimated the value of stolen jewelry at upwards of $200,000.
Tourangeau originally faced additional charges, but those were stayed before the trial began. The trial opened Monday with both men entering not guilty pleas.
Security Footage and Vehicle Identification
Crown prosecutor Matthew Dahl urged the judge to examine security footage that allegedly shows the accused men, along with a woman not on trial, visiting the jewelry store hours before the robbery. A store employee identified the men in the video as individuals who had browsed the store earlier that day, describing their behavior as strange. Dahl argued this was evidence the group was “scoping” the location.
The group was also seen using a black SUV in footage from a McDonald’s restaurant and at Northgate Mall, where the theft occurred. Dahl contended that the SUV’s unique characteristics, including damage, matched the vehicle used by the masked thieves in another clip from the mall’s exterior.
Defense Challenges Identification
Nathan Metivier, representing Macphee, argued the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the undisguised person in the footage was his client, let alone one of the masked thieves. He noted that even if the judge accepted Macphee was seen with the black SUV, mere association could not prove guilt. Metivier pointed to the 90-minute gap between the footage of the undisguised group with the SUV and the robbery, saying “anything could have happened” and the court could not be sure who was in the vehicle when the masked figures emerged.
Doug Andrews, representing Tourangeau, adopted Metivier’s arguments. He quipped, “If the car was charged here, you may well find it guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Andrews also challenged the identification of his client in the undisguised footage, suggesting the Crown’s case merely asserted that because Tourangeau was at McDonald’s with a group earlier, he must have been involved.
Judge Beaton did not indicate when she would render her decision.
