R. v. Dunn, (1982) 44 N.R. 594 (SCC)

• Judge: Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 23, 1982
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1982), 44 N.R. 594 (SCC);[1983] 2 WWR 1;142 DLR (3d) 224;1 CCC (3d) 1;1982 CanLII 214 (SCC);44 NR 594;[1982] 2 SCR 677

R. v. Dunn (1982), 44 N.R. 594 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Dunn

Indexed As: R. v. Dunn

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.

November 23, 1982

Summary:

The accused was charged with trafficking in the restricted drug psilocybin, found in "magic mushrooms", contrary to s. 42(1) of the Food and Drugs Act. The accused was charged after he sold a pound of mushrooms to undercover police officers for $3000. The British Columbia Provincial Court granted the accused's motion for dismissal at the close of the Crown's case on the ground that possession of psilocybin as a part of a naturally occurring plant was not a violation of the Food and Drugs Act. The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial court for completion of the trial. The court held that, where the accused obviously knew that he was selling mushrooms containing psilocybin, for a large amount of money, there was evidence before the trial judge upon which the accused could be convicted of trafficking in psilocybin. The court further stated that a person who knowingly has magic mushrooms growing on his property would be guilty of possession of psilocybin.

Food and Drug Control - Topic 1164

Restricted drugs - Possession - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the possession of mushrooms knowing that they contain the restricted drug psilocybin was unlawful.

Food and Drug Control - Topic 1203

Restricted drugs - Trafficking - What constitutes - The accused sold one pound of mushrooms containing the restricted drug psilocybin to undercover police officers for $3000 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was evidence on which the accused could be convicted of trafficking in psilocybin.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Parnell (1979), 51 C.C.C.(2d) 413, disapprvd. [para. 1].

R. v. Cartier (1980), 22 A.R. 257; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 32, disapprvd. [para. 1].

D.P.P. v. Goodchild, [1978] 2 All E.R. 161, consd. [para. 1].

Statutes Noticed:

Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F-27, sect. 41(1).

Counsel:

S. David Frankel, for the appellant;

Edward A. Holekamp, for the respondent.

This case was heard on May 4, 1982 at Ottawa, Ontario, before RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD, LAMER and WILSON, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On November 23, 1982, McINTYRE, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada.