R. v. Gambilla (D.A.) et al., 2015 ABQB 160

• Judge: Yamauchi, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 06, 2013
• Citations: 2015 ABQB 160;(2015), 604 A.R. 285 (QB)

R. v. Gambilla (D.A.) (2015), 604 A.R. 285 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MY.007

Her Majesty the Queen v. Dennis Anambono Gambilla and Myriam Mamouni

(100386366Q1; 2015 ABQB 160)

Indexed As: R. v. Gambilla (D.A.) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Yamauchi, J.

March 27, 2015.

Summary:

The accused were charged with unlawfully importing a controlled substance (cocaine) into Canada and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) for the purpose of trafficking.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench convicted the accused of importing cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Criminal Law - Topic 5241

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Eyewitness identification - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "eyewitness evidence is admissible and can support a proper conviction. Matters such as the circumstances of the identification and subsequent police methodology can affect the weight of the identification evidence. This is factual journey for the trial judge who must bear in mind, in appropriate circumstances, the frailty of eyewitness identification and its fallibility. The task of this Court is factual. It must carefully examine the circumstances to determine the opportunity the various witnesses had to view the Accused Persons, the circumstances of the subsequent identification itself, and other supporting evidence, if available. If that examination leaves a doubt as to the accuracy of the identification, it would be incapable of proving the identity to the standard required and it must acquit the Accused Persons. On the other hand, if the examination is sufficient to prove the identity of the Accused Persons beyond a reasonable doubt then it must consider the elements of the charges that they face." - See paragraphs 244 to 245.

Criminal Law - Topic 5254.6

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Fingerprints - The accused, charged with drug offences, challenged the admission of fingerprint evidence on the ground that, inter alia, the fingerprint forms on which the "known" fingerprints appeared were photocopies of the originals, not the originals - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the copies were admissible through either s. 30(3) of the Criminal Code or under the common law rules respecting admissibility where the officers who undertook the fingerprint analysis testified at trial - Section 30(3) was a "shortcut" which obviated the need of the Crown to present those officers to testify - The authentication required by s. 30(3), in circumstances where those officers testified, was an unnecessary step - In any event, if the Crown sought admission under s. 30(1), the court would have admitted the photocopies as they were prepared in the usual and ordinary course of the business of the policing agencies - The "best evidence" rule was not sufficient to exclude the evidence - See paragraphs 259 to 282.

Criminal Law - Topic 5320.2

Evidence and witnesses - Inferences - From circumstantial evidence - The Crown's evidence against the accused was largely circumstantial - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "When this Court analyzes the evidence that the Crown has presented to it, it must determine whether the totality of the evidence supports an inference that the Accused Persons committed the offences with which the Crown has charged them. Of course, the inferences that this Court draws from the evidence must satisfy it beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused Persons committed the offences with which the Crown has charged them ... This Court cannot rely on speculation to support any inferences it might draw. ... the Crown cannot ask this Court to rely on suppositions or conjecture to draw inferences that the Accused Persons committed the offences with which it has charged them. Similarly, the Accused Persons cannot ask this Court to rely on suppositions or conjecture that flows from a purely hypothetical narrative to conclude that the Crown has not proven they are guilty of the offences with which the Crown has charged them. ... trial courts ... must consider whether the evidence in their totality proves the accused's guilt, and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion." - See paragraphs 314, 316, 318, 321.

Evidence - Topic 1582

Hearsay rule - Hearsay rule exceptions and exclusions - Business records - Regular entries - Entries or records made in the regular course of a business - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5254.6 ].

Evidence - Topic 3004

Documentary evidence - General - Best evidence rule - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5254.6 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 529

Offences - Importation - Place of offence - When importation occurs - A parcel containing cocaine was mailed by Legerton from Trinidad and Tobago to Carlsen's Calgary address - The parcel arrived by air in Toronto - Border officials identified its contents and alerted the police - A "tail-to-tail" delivery of the parcel was effected by police to Carlsen - Carlsen hand-delivered the parcel in an alley to Legerton, who placed the parcel in the trunk of a rented vehicle in which the accused were the driver and passenger - Legerton got in the vehicle and it drove off - Police stopped the vehicle - All three occupants fled on foot, abandoning the vehicle and its contents - Carlsen, a drug addict with a criminal record, testified for the Crown that he knew the accused and that they arranged the importation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that although the importation occurred in Ontario, it had jurisdiction because the accused, while in Calgary, made all the arrangements and performed all of the acts required to import the drugs to Ontario - The court, although recognizing Carlsen as an unsavoury witness requiring a cautionary warning as to his credibility, accepted his evidence as credible - His evidence was corroborated by independent evidence - There was evidence that the accused and Legerton were in Trinidad and Tobago when the parcel was mailed from there - Their fingerprints were found on items in the parcel - The accused and Legerton were identified as the three persons fleeing the vehicle - The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused arranged for the cocaine to be imported to Canada from Trinidad and Tobago - Given that almost two kilograms of cocaine was imported, their possession of the cocaine was for the purpose of trafficking - The accused were convicted of unlawfully importing cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking - See paragraphs 220 to 359.

Narcotic Control - Topic 544

Offences - Importation - Evidence and proof - [See Narcotic Control - Topic 529 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 703

Offences - Trafficking - Possession for purposes of trafficking - [See Narcotic Control - Topic 529 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bell, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 471; 50 N.R. 172; 8 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 221].

R. v. Vetrovec; R. v. Gaja, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811; 41 N.R. 606, refd to. [para. 224].

R. v. Khela (G.S.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 104; 383 N.R. 279; 265 B.C.A.C. 31; 446 W.A.C. 31; 2009 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 224].

R. v. Grant (R.), [1999] A.R. Uned. 166; 1999 CarswellAlta 627; 43 W.C.B.(2d) 122; 1999 ABCA 211, refd to. [para. 234].

R. v. J.H.S. (2008), 375 N.R. 67; 265 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 848 A.P.R. 203; 2008 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 235].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 205, refd to. [para. 238].

R. v. Hibbert (K.R.) (2002), 287 N.R. 111; 165 B.C.A.C. 161; 270 W.A.C. 161; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 2002 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 238].

R. v. Atfield (1983), 42 A.R. 294; 25 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 1983 ABCA 44, refd to. [para. 239].

R. v. Zurowski (D.) (2003), 339 A.R. 233; 312 W.A.C. 233; 19 C.R.(6th) 166; 2003 ABCA 315, refd to. [para. 240].

R. v. Nikolovski (A.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197; 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1; 111 C.C.C.(3d) 403, refd to. [para. 246].

R. v. Blondin, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 1; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 118 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 252].

R. v. Saunders - see R. v. Rooke and De Vries.

R. v. Rooke and De Vries, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1020; 108 N.R. 234; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 220, refd to. [para. 254].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 394, refd to. [para. 260].

R. v. Lavallee (1990), 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 260].

R. v. Dean (1992), 127 A.R. 376; 20 W.A.C. 376; 2 Alta. L.R.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 263].

R. v. Grandinetti (C.H.) (2003), 339 A.R. 52; 312 W.A.C. 52; 178 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 2003 ABCA 307, refd to. [para. 263].

R. v. Betterest Vinyl Manufacturing Ltd. (1989), 52 C.C.C.(3d) 441 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 266].

R. v. Monkhouse (1988), 83 A.R. 62; 56 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 268].

R. v. Tehrani (2008), 60 C.R.(6th) 379; 2008 QCCQ 21453, refd to. [para. 269].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 4, refd to. [para. 270].

R. v. C.T.L. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 45; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 275].

R. v. Grimba (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 469 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 276].

R. v. Smith (K.R.) (2011), 510 A.R. 37; 527 W.A.C. 37; 273 C.C.C.(3d) 525; 2011 ABCA 136, refd to. [para. 277].

R. v. S.A.S. (1994), 150 A.R. 228 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 278].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 402, refd to. [para. 283].

R. v. Bornyk (T.D.) (2015), 366 B.C.A.C. 194; 629 W.A.C. 194; 2015 BCCA 28, refd to. [para. 283].

R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236; 2001 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 299].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 314].

R. v. To (W.H.) (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 223; 28 W.A.C. 223; 1992 CarswellBC 1039 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 314].

R. v. Latif (M.A.) (2004), 65 W.C.B.(2d) 69; 2004 CarswellOnt 6494 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [2005] O.A.C. Uned. 342; 66 W.C.B.(2d) 327 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 316].

R. v. Mullings, 2005 CarswellOnt 3022 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 317].

R. v. Munoz (L.), [2006] O.T.C. 112; 86 O.R.(3d) 134; 205 C.C.C.(3d) 70 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 317].

R. v. Paul, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 181; 4 N.R. 435, refd to. [para. 318].

R. v. Richer (R.J.) (1993), 141 A.R. 116; 46 W.A.C. 116; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 318].

R. v. McIver, [1965] 1 O.R. 306; [1965] 1 C.C.C. 210 (H.C.), affd. [1966] S.C.R. 254, refd to. [para. 319].

United States of America v. Huynh (2005), 202 O.A.C. 198; 200 C.C.C.(3d) 305; 66 W.C.B.(2d) 680 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 319].

R. v. Bauer (M.W.) (2003), 180 B.C.A.C. 42; 297 W.A.C. 42; 2003 BCCA 138, refd to. [para. 321].

R. v. Parchment (O.C.) (2007), 243 B.C.A.C. 161; 401 W.A.C. 161; 2007 BCCA 326, refd to. [para. 321].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 322].

R. v. Pham (K.T.) (2005), 204 O.A.C. 299; 77 O.R.(3d) 401; 203 C.C.C.(3d) 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 323].

R. v. Giammarco (D.) et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 6649; 98 W.C.B.(2d) 516; 2011 CarswellOnt 12975; 2011 ONSC 6649, refd to. [para. 326].

R. v. Vollrath (S.G.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 725; 88 W.C.B.(2d) 748; 2010 ABQB 435, refd to. [para. 333].

R. v. Caldwell (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 285 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 348].

R. v. Aiello (1978), 30 N.R. 559; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 485; 1978 CarswellOnt 1182 (C.A.), affd. [1979] 2 S.C.R. 15; 30 N.R. 558, refd to. [para. 349].

R. v. Ta (B.V.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 115; 84 W.C.B.(2d) 577; 2009 ABQB 234, affd. (2010), 487 A.R. 168; 495 W.A.C. 168; 88 W.C.B.(2d) 47; 2010 ABCA 145, refd to. [para. 351].

R. v. Nguyen (T.V.) - see R. v. Ta (B.V.).

R. v. Savory (D.M.) (1996), 94 O.A.C. 318; 1996 CarswellOnt 4029 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 351].

R. v. Roan, Brown and Sande (1985), 57 A.R. 296; 1985 CarswellAlta 450 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 355].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Lederman, Sidney N., Bryant, Alan W. and Fuerst, Michelle K., The Law of Evidence in Canada (4th Ed. 2014), §18.6 [para. 282].

Watt, David, Watt's Manual of Criminal Evidence (2012), §11.01 [para. 282].

Counsel:

S. Jackson, Q.C., A. Webber, F. Polak and T. Lord, for the Crown;

I.D. McKay (Fagan & McKay), for the accused, Dennis Anambono Gambilla;

D.G. Chow (Roulston Chow), for the accused, Myriam Mamouni.

This matter was heard between May 6, 2013, and January 29, 2015, before Yamauchi, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on March 27, 2015.