R. v. Butler, (1979) 31 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 412 (NFPC)

• Judge: Trahey, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 02, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1979), 31 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 412 (NFPC)

R. v. Butler (1979), 31 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 412 (NFPC);

    87 A.P.R. 412

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Butler

Indexed As: R. v. Butler

Newfoundland Provincial Court

Trahey, P.C.J.

May 2, 1979.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession of a restricted drug (LSD) for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 42(2) of the Food and Drugs Act. The Newfoundland Provincial Court convicted the accused.

Food and Drug Control - Topic 1203

Drugs - Restricted - Trafficking - What constitutes - Food and Drugs Act, s. 42(2) - The accused, who bought a number of LSD pills, said he was "going to do most of it and pass it around" at a party he was going to - The Newfoundland Provincial Court, held the accused guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking by transporting, delivering and distributing the drug - See paragraph 20.

Food and Drug Control - Topic 1266

Drugs - Offences - Trafficking - Elements of offence - Transport - The Newfoundland Provincial Court referred to the meaning of the word "transport" as a method of trafficking in s. 40 of the Food and Drugs Act - See paragraphs 13 and 14.

Food and Drug Control - Topic 1305

Drugs - Evidence and proof - Intention - The Newfoundland Provincial Court, stated that the Crown does not have to prove an overt act to establish an accused's intention to traffic - The court stated the types of evidence available to the Crown to prove intention to traffic and stated that after the Crown establishes a prima facie case of intention, the accused must disprove intention by a balance of probabilities - See paragraphs 8 to 11.

Words and Phrases

Transport - The Newfoundland Provincial Court, discussed the meaning of the word "transport" in s. 40 of the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-27.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Zane, [1976] 1 W.W.R. 92, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Jimmo (1974), 16 C.C.C.(2d) 396, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Greene (1977), 11 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 322; 22 A.P.R. 322, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. O'Connor, 23 C.C.C.(2d) 110, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Christiansen (1973), 6 N.B.R.(2d) 810; 13 C.C.C.(2d) 504 (N.B.S.C. App. Div.), consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Harrington and Scosky, [1974] 1 C.C.C. 189, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Weselak (1972), 9 C.C.C.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Rogalsky (1976), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 399 (Sask. C.A.) refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Santa (1979), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 471 (Ont. P.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Eaves (1913), 21 C.C.C. 23 (Que. K.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 546, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Robinson (1951), 100 C.C.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-27, sect. 40 [para. 3]; sect. 42(2) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

McFarlane, J.A., Drug Offences In Canada (1979) [para. 18].

Whealy, Arthur C., Drugs and the Criminal Law (1969-70), 12 Crim. L.Q. 254, pp. 268 and 269 [para. 11].

Counsel:

David C. Day, for the Crown;

William Collins, for the accused.

This case was heard by TRAHEY, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, who on May 2, 1979, delivered the following oral judgment: