R. v. Keddy (B.T.), (2012) 322 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 107 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 19, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2012), 322 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 107 (NLPC);2012 NLPC 1410

R. v. Keddy (B.T.) (2012), 322 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 107 (NLPC);

    1000 A.P.R. 107

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. AP.047

Her Majesty the Queen v. Bradley Tyrone Keddy

(2012 NLPC 1410A00552)

Indexed As: R. v. Keddy (B.T.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

April 30, 2012.

Summary:

The accused's vehicle was stopped and searched by the police after it exited a ferry. The police found a quantity of cannabis marihuana. The accused was charged with possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The accused claimed that he did not have possession of the cannabis marihuana because he did not know that it was in his vehicle.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court convicted the accused.

Narcotic Control - Topic 583

Offences - Possession - General - Inference of possession - The accused's vehicle, a pick-up truck, was stopped and searched by the police after it exited a ferry - The police were acting pursuant to a tip - They found two baggies containing a total of 474 grams of cannabis marihuana valued at $2,000, in an Alexander Keith's bag belonging to the accused, in the pan of the truck - The accused was charged with possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - The accused claimed that he did not have possession because he did not know that it was in his vehicle - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court convicted the accused - The totality of the circumstances caused the court to conclude that the only rational inference that could be drawn from the evidence presented was that the accused placed the cannabis marihuana in his own bag before travelling from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland.

Narcotic Control - Topic 606

Offences - Possession - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - [See Narcotic Control - Topic 583 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 19].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. J.M.H. (2011), 421 N.R. 76; 283 O.A.C. 231; 2011 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Van (D.), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 716; 388 N.R. 200; 251 O.A.C. 295; 65 C.R.(6th) 193; 2009 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Gray (B.F.) (2012), 522 A.R. 374; 544 W.A.C. 374; 2012 ABCA 51, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. J.M.H. (2012), 322 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 29; 1000 A.P.R. 29; 2012 PECA 6, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Chan (K.Y.) (2003), 175 O.A.C. 91; 178 C.C.C.(3d) 269 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Daniels (P.) (2004), 242 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 290; 719 A.P.R. 290; 191 C.C.C.(3d) 393, refd to. [para. 27].

Beaver v. The Queen (1957), 118 C.C.C. 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Russell (D.J.) (2011), 307 B.C.A.C. 142; 519 W.A.C. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Morelli - see R. v. U.P.M.

R. v. U.P.M., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253; 399 N.R. 200; 346 Sask.R. 1; 477 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. York (J.A.) (2005), 208 B.C.A.C. 184; 344 W.A.C. 184; 193 C.C.C.(3d) 331, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Kinna (1951), 98 C.C.C. 378 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Terrence (1983), 47 N.R. 8; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Bonassin (D.) (2008), 278 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 854 A.P.R. 45 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Barreau (S.N.) (1991), 9 B.C.A.C. 290; 19 W.A.C. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Provost (T.), [2011] O.A.C. Uned. 390; 2011 ONCA 425, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Beals (K.J.) (2011), 302 N.S.R.(2d) 358; 955 A.P.R. 358 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Oddleifson (J.N.) (2010), 255 Man.R.(2d) 68; 486 W.A.C. 68 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Ta (B.V.) (2010), 487 A.R. 168; 495 W.A.C. 168 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Hatfield (1985), 85 N.B.R.(2d) 208; 217 A.P.R. 208 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Griffin (J.) et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 42; 388 N.R. 334; 2009 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Sullivan (R.T.) (2012), 322 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 39; 1000 A.P.R. 39; 2012 NLTD(G) 70, refd to. [para. 43].

Counsel:

S. Gallant, for Her Majesty the Queen;

D. Murray, Q.C., for Mr. Keddy.

This case was heard at Port Aux Basques, NL, on April 19, 2012, by Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on April 30, 2012.