R. v. Bell, (1983) 50 N.R. 172 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 24, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1983), 50 N.R. 172 (SCC);8 CCC (3d) 97;50 NR 172;36 CR (3d) 289;[1983] 2 SCR 471;11 WCB 13;1983 CanLII 166 (SCC);3 DLR (4th) 385;[1983] SCJ No 83 (QL)

R. v. Bell (1983), 50 N.R. 172 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

R. v. Bell

Indexed As: R. v. Bell

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.

November 24, 1983.

Summary:

The accused was charged with importing narcotics contrary to s. 5 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1. The narcotics were shipped hidden in footstools from Jamaica to the accused's home address in Quebec. The footstools arrived at Toronto, where the narcotics were found by customs officers, who notified the R.C.M.P. The footstools were shipped to Mirabel Airport in Quebec, where the R.C.M.P. took possession of the footstools and removed most of the narcotics. The footstools were returned to Mirabel, where the accused picked them up. At trial a judge of the Quebec Superior Court sitting with a jury directed the jury to return to verdict of acquittal on the motion of defence counsel at the close of the Crown's case. The judge ruled that the taking possession of the marijuana by the R.C.M.P. broke the chain of possession of the narcotics and completed the act of importation before the goods were received by the accused. The Crown appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis that the offence of importing a narcotic was a continuing offence, which was not completed until the accused received the goods. The R.C.M.P. possession was considered irrelevant. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order for a new trial. The court held that the offence of importing a narcotic was not a continuing one and was complete upon the entry of goods into Canada at Toronto and it was not necessary for the accused to be at the place where the goods entered Canada. The court held that either the courts of the province where the goods entered the county or those of the province where the acts or arrangement leading to the importation occurred had jurisdiction. The court held that the R.C.M.P. intervention was irrelevant.

Criminal Law - Topic 7

Continuing offence - Defined - The Supreme Court of Canada, in holding that the offence of importing a narcotic was not a continuing offence, discussed and defined the nature of a continuing offence - See paragraphs 7 to 10.

Criminal Law - Topic 4359

Procedure - Jury charge - Directed verdict of not guilty - At the close of the Crown's case in a prosecution for importing a narcotic the defence moved for a directed verdict of not guilty, while asserting that a defence would be presented - The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal after erroneously ruling that on the facts a finding of importation was precluded - The Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial on the ground that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict of acquittal before the evidence was completed - The court held that the trial judge's error of law in ruling that the finding of importation was precluded prevented him from his proper inquiry of whether there was evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could convict - See paragraphs 3, 13, 25, 34.

Narcotic Control - Topic 528

Offences - Importation - Defined - Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, s. 5 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word "import" should be construed in its ordinary meaning of to bring into the country or to cause to be brought into the country - The court held that the offence of importation occurs and is complete when the goods enter the country - See paragraph 9.

Narcotic Control - Topic 529

Offences - Importing - Place of offence - When importation occurs - Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, s. 5 - Narcotics were shipped hidden in footstools to the accused Quebec resident, arriving in Canada at Toronto - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the importation of the narcotics, which was not a continuing offence, occurred at Toronto, where the narcotics entered Canada - The court held that either the jurisdiction where the narcotics entered Canada or the jurisdiction where the accused acts or arrangement leading to the importation occurred had jurisdiction and it was not necessary for the accused to have been at the place of importation to be found guilty of importing.

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - General principles - Ordinary meaning of words - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word "import" with regard to the offence of importing a narcotic contrary to the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, s. 5, should be construed in its ordinary meaning, which was simply to bring into the country or to cause to be brought into the country - See paragraphs 9, 23 to 29.

Words and Phrases

Import - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word "import" with regard to the offence of importing a narcotic contrary to s. 5 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, meant to bring into the country or to cause to be brought into the country - See paragraph 9.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hijazi (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 183 (Ont. C.A.), not folld. [paras. 4, 27].

R. v. Whynott (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 321; 12 N.S.R.(2d) 231; 6 A.P.R. 231 (N.S.C.A.), not folld. [para. 4].

R. v. Salvador (1981), 21 C.R.(3d) 1; 45 N.S.R.(2d) 192; 86 A.P.R. 192, not folld. [para. 6].

R. v. Geesman (1970), 13 C.R.N.S. 240 (Que. S.P.), consd. [paras. 6, 10, 29].

R. v. Martin (1973), 21 C.R.N.S. 149 (Ont. S.C.), consd. [paras. 6, 10].

R. v. McKenzie Securities Limited et al., [1966] 4 C.C.C. 29, appld. [para. 11].

Bennett and Schuette and The Queen, Re (1974), 19 C.C.C.(2d) 61, appld. [para. 11].

R. v. Morabito, [1949] S.C.R. 172, appld. [para. 13].

Kienapple v. R., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322; 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524; 26 C.R.N.S. 1, 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 25].

Whynott and The Queen, Re (1974), 22 C.C.C.(2d) 433; 15 N.S.R.(2d) 107; 14 A.P.R. 107 (N.S.S.C., T.D.), consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Tanny (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 445 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 30].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 21(1) [para. 27]; sect. 432(b) [para. 12].

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-40, sect. 101 [para. 22].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 14 [para. 22].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, sect. 5.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) [para. 32].

MacFarlane, Bruce A., Drug Offences In Canada, p. 231 [para. 24].

Petit Robert (1976) [para. 25].

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary [para. 25].

Words and Phrases (Perm. Ed.) [para. 32].

Counsel:

Richard Perras, for the appellant;

Gerald LaHaye, for the respondent.

This case was heard on February 10, 1983, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 24, 1983, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

McIntyre, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 14;

Dickson, J. - see paragraphs 15 to 34.

Beetz, Estey and Chouinard, JJ., concurred with McIntyre, J.