R. v. MacFarlane (K.R.), (1992) 100 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 302 (PEICA)

• Judge: Carruthers, C.J.P.E.I., Mitchell and Mullally, JJ.A.
• Case Date: August 04, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Prince Edward Island
• Citations: (1992), 100 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 302 (PEICA);1992 CanLII 2788 (PE SCAD);100 Nfld & PEIR 302;76 CCC (3d) 54;318 APR 302

R. v. MacFarlane (K.R.) (1992), 100 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 302 (PEICA);

    318 A.P.R. 302

MLB headnote and full text

Kenneth Rae MacFarlane (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(AD-0341)

Indexed As: R. v. MacFarlane (K.R.)

Prince Edward Island Supreme Court

Appeal Division

Carruthers, C.J.P.E.I., Mitchell and Mullally, JJ.A.

August 27, 1992.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment. He appealed conviction and sentence.

The Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Appeal Division, dismissed the appeals.

Civil Rights - Topic 1403

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Search warrants - The accused submitted that ss. 11 and 12 of the Narcotic Control Act infringed s. 8 of the Charter as they did not provide for the return of items seized to the authority who authorized the search warrant - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal held that the special search powers under the Narcotic Control Act were a comprehensive set of rules that were reasonable provisions and did not violate s. 8 of the Charter - See paragraphs 22 to 37.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - A search warrant did not disclose the identity of the informant - The accused claimed that without disclosure he was unable to make full answer and defence - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal stated that there are three exceptions to the rule that an informant's identity should be protected, namely, (1) if the informer is a material witness; (2) if the informer acted as agent provocateur; (3) if the accused seeks to establish that the search was not undertaken on reasonable grounds and therefore s. 8 of the Charter was violated - See paragraphs 6 to 11.

Criminal Law - Topic 5850

Sentence - Trafficking in a narcotic (incl. possession for purposes of trafficking) - The accused was convicted of possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking - 83.7 grams seized, with an approximate value of $1,674 - The accused was a user - Smoked hash on the day he testified in court - Record dated - On a higher plateau than a petty retailer - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal affirmed a sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment - See paragraphs 45 to 55.

Narcotic Control - Topic 2043

Search and seizure - Setting aside search warrants - Grounds - Information - Sufficiency of form and contents - An accused sought to set aside a search warrant for lack of factual basis in support and for breach of his s. 8 Charter rights - The Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal held that the justice of the peace was justified in issuing the search warrant and there was no Charter breach, where the constable swearing the information to obtain the search warrant had reasonable grounds to believe that the accused possessed narcotics and they constituted sufficient evidence to enable the justice of the peace to be satisfied that the required grounds for granting the warrant existed - See paragraphs 12 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Scott (1990), 116 N.R. 361; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 300 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

MacIntyre v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia and Grainger et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175; 40 N.R. 181; 49 N.S.R.(2d) 609; 96 A.P.R. 609; 132 D.L.R.(3d) 385; 26 C.R.(3d) 193; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 129, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 73 C.R.(3d) 129, refd to. [paras. 15, 27].

R. v. Pastro (1988), 66 Sask.R. 241; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Church of Scientology and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Genest, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 59; 91 N.R. 161; 19 Q.A.C. 163; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 67 C.R.(3d) 224; 37 C.R.R. 252, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Gimson (1990), 37 O.A.C. 243; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 31].

Goguen et al. v. Shannon and Murphy (1989), 97 N.B.R.(2d) 44; 245 A.P.R. 44; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 45 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Oraniuk, [1990] 1 P.E.I.R. A3; 85 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 157; 266 A.P.R. 157 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Martel (1986), 60 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 194; 181 A.P.R. 194 (P.E.I.S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. McNamee, [1990] 2 P.E.I.R. A23; 87 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179; 271 A.P.R. 179 (P.E.I.C.A.), [para. 32].

R. v. Martel (Kurt) (1986), 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 230; 185 A.P.R. 230 (P.E.I.S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Blomert (1992), 95 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 301 A.P.R. 1 (P.E.I.S.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 54].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 22]; sect. 24(2) [para. 30].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487(1)(e) [para. 22].

Customs Act, S.C. 1986, c. 1, sect. s. 111 [para 31]; sect. 111(1)[para. 32]; sect. 111(5) [para. 34].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, sect. 4(2) [para. 2]; sect. 11, sect. 12 [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Le Dain, Cannabis: A Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs (1972), generally [para. 30].

Counsel:

Peter C. Ghiz, for the appellant;

John K. Mitchell, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on June 15, 25 and August 4, 1992, before Carruthers, C.J.P.E.I., Mitchell and Mullally, JJ.A., of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. On August 27, 1992, Carruthers, C.J.P.E.I., delivered the following judgment for the court.