R. v. Munro (C.C.), (2003) 231 Sask.R. 259 (PC)

• Judge: Halderman, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 27, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2003), 231 Sask.R. 259 (PC)

R. v. Munro (C.C.) (2003), 231 Sask.R. 259 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.055

Her Majesty the Queen upon the information of Raymond Sherwood Faith, Peace Officer (informant) v. Curtis Clarence Munro, of Hudson Bay, Saskatchewan (accused)

Indexed As: R. v. Munro (C.C.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Halderman, P.C.J.

February 27, 2003.

Summary:

An accused was charged with unlawful possession of cannabis marijuana in an amount not exceeding three grams for the purpose of trafficking (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 5(2)). The accused admitted that he was in possession of marijuana, but asserted that the charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking was not made out.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty as charged.

Narcotic Control - Topic 703

Offences - Trafficking - Possession for purposes of trafficking - The police seized 2.25 ounces of marijuana from a home in which the accused was a joint occupier - When asked about a van that had pulled up just prior to the search, the accused replied "... we were just going to roll a joint" - When asked if he was paid, the accused said "No, I'm a generous guy" - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that the accused had possession for his own use and was guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking where he was willing to share with others - Alternatively, the evidence, when considered in its entirety, was consistent with possession for the purpose of trafficking - The court considered, inter alia, the accused's statement that he, as opposed to "we", had three ounces the previous week; that 2.25 ounces was on the outer limit of the amount that two individuals would have for personal use; the accused had possession of the entire amount where he was in a position to use or control it; the combination of items found in the house; the coming and going of visitors who never knocked; and a visitor arriving with a $10 bill in hand.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Binkley (1982), 15 Sask.R. 251; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 169 (C.A.), appld. [para. 7].

R. v. Rogalsky (1976), 23 C.C.C.(2d) 399 (Sask. C.A.), folld. [para. 11].

R. v. Gardiner (1987), 21 O.A.C. 177; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 461 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Keel (K.N.) (1987), 63 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 163; 194 A.P.R. 163 (Nfld. (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Webster, [1992] P.E.I.J. No. 64 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Aylward (J.R.) (1993), 36 B.C.A.C. 14; 58 W.A.C. 14; 1993 CarswellBC 1106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Marciszyn (1991), 96 Sask.R. 319; 1991 CarswellSask 341 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Froese (1988), 55 Man.R.(2d) 247; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 1988 CarswellMan 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. O'Neill (M.A.) (1999), 133 B.C.A.C. 161; 217 W.A.C. 161; 1999 CarswellBC 2831 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Beveridge (T.A.) (2001), 237 N.B.R.(2d) 216; 612 A.P.R. 216; 2001 CarswellNB 484 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 29].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 35].

Counsel:

Stuart Eisner, Crown prosecutor;

Stephen Nesdoly, for the accused.

This matter was heard by Halderman, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 27, 2003, at Hudson Bay, Saskatchewan.