R. v. J.C., (2008) 332 Sask.R. 45 (PC)

• Judge: Gray, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: December 05, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2008), 332 Sask.R. 45 (PC);2008 SKPC 166

R. v. J.C. (2008), 332 Sask.R. 45 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.053

Her Majesty the Queen v. C.(J.)

(Information Nos. 39694108, 39844274 and 39844275; 2008 SKPC 166)

Indexed As: R. v. J.C.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Youth Justice Court

Gray, P.C.J.

December 5, 2008.

Summary:

The 17 year old accused was charged with two counts of trafficking in controlled substances (hydromorphone and marijuana). He was also charged with one count of violating a youth sentence by possessing drugs, one count of violating an undertaking by failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and one count of violating that same undertaking by possessing drugs. All counts arose from the same incident. At issue was whether the evidence established a wilful blindness from which the court could be satisfied that the requisite mens rea has been proven and whether the Kienapple principle precluded convictions for two counts of trafficking on the facts of this case.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that all the elements of the two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance and the counts of violating the youth sentence and undertakings were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the Kienapple principle did not apply on the facts of this case and a conviction would be registered on all counts, including the two trafficking counts.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 39.4

General principles - Mens rea or intention - Doctrine of wilful blindness - [See Criminal Law - Topic 82 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 82

General principles - Res judicata (multiple convictions for same subject matter precluded) - Bars to raising the defence - Upon receiving a telephone call from his uncle, an inmate at a correctional centre, the 17 year old accused picked up a parcel at a stranger's home and threw it over the wall of the correctional centre - The accused asked if there were drugs in the package and was told there were not - He did not look into the package - He knew his uncle had abused drugs - When it turned out that there were drugs in the package, the accused was charged with two trafficking offences (hydromorphone and marihuana) - At issue was whether the evidence established a wilful blindness from which the court could be satisfied that the requisite mens rea has been proven and whether the Kienapple principle precluded convictions on both trafficking counts - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that the accused had been wilfully blind as to the contents of the parcel - He was convicted on both counts, the Kienapple principle being inapplicable in these circumstances - Here the elements of trafficking in marijuana were separate and distinct from trafficking in hydromorphone - Although there was one transaction, the result was the delivery of two separate drugs.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570; 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Jorgensen (R.) et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55; 189 N.R. 1; 87 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Malfara (N.M.) (2006), 211 O.A.C. 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Cheney, [2005] S.J. No. 71 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Lagace (G.) (2003), 178 O.A.C. 391; 181 C.C.C.(3d) 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Voutsis (1989), 73 Sask.R. 287; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 451 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Prince, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 480; 70 N.R. 119; 45 Man.R.(2d) 93; 54 C.R.(3d) 97; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 1; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 724; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 35; 1986 CarswellMan 357, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Wildeman (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 360 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Galloway (R.) (2004), 249 Sask.R. 262; 325 W.A.C. 262; 187 C.C.C.(3d) 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Smith (D.W.), [2006] 9 W.W.R. 317; 278 Sask.R. 4; 2006 SKQB 137, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Nagy (T.F.) (2007), 304 Sask.R. 268; 413 W.A.C. 268 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Counsel:

C. Warde, for the Crown;

B. Freriks, for the defence.

This matter was heard in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before Gray, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Youth Justice Court, who delivered the following decision on December 5, 2008.