R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, (1984) 55 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Ritchie, Dickson, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.
• Citation: (1984), 55 N.R. 1 (SCC),JE 84-1013,13 DLR (4th) 1,AZ-84111047,13 WCB 33,[1984] 6 WWR 289,1984 CanLII 23 (SCC),42 CR (3d) 113,[1984] SCJ No 40 (QL),28 BCLR (2d) 205,55 NR 1,14 CCC (3d) 385,[1984] 2 SCR 232
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 01 February 1984

R. v. Perka (1984), 55 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson

(No. 17217)

Indexed As: R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Dickson, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ.

October 11, 1984.

Summary:

A ship smuggling marihuana from Colombia to Alaska developed mechanical trouble and, in bad weather, sought safety on the Canadian coastline, where it was grounded. Fearing the vessel would capsize, the captain ordered the cargo offloaded. The smugglers' cargo was seized and they were charged with importing marihuana into Canada and with possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. The accused raised the defence of necessity, i.e. that they did not plan to import into Canada as their destination was Alaska. The accused also relied on a "botanical defence", in that the Crown allegedly failed to prove that the ship's cargo was "cannabis sativa L.", the only species of marihuana specifically prohibited by the Narcotic Control Act. A jury acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (1982), 69 C.C.C.(2d) 405; 38 B.C.L.R. 273, allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial on the ground that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant the Crown's application to call rebuttal evidence respecting the condition of the vessel. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct in withdrawing the "botanical defence" from the jury. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed that a new trial was warranted.

Criminal Law - Topic 203

Common law defences - Necessity - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the history of the defence of necessity - See paragraphs 10 to 20.

Criminal Law - Topic 203

Common law defences - Necessity - The Supreme Court of Canada summarized the law respecting the defence of necessity, including bars to its application and the onus of proving the defence - See paragraph 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 203

Common law defences - Necessity - A ship smuggling marihuana from Colombia to Alaska developed mechanical trouble and, in bad weather, sought safety on the Canadian coastline, where it was grounded - Fearing the vessel would capsize, the captain ordered the cargo offloaded - The smugglers were charged with, inter alia, importation - The Crown argued that the smugglers could not rely on the defence of necessity because of their criminal activity - The Supreme Court of Canada held that their conduct was not illegal under Canadian law at the time the emergency arose, and even if it were, the smugglers could still raise the defence of necessity - See paragraphs 44 to 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 4357

Procedure - Jury charge - Directions regarding defences - Defence of necessity - The Supreme Court of Canada set out the correct test for instructing a jury on the defence of necessity - See paragraph 65 - The court held that a judge erred in explaining the meaning and application of the test by failing to deal with the question of whether there was any reasonable legal alternative to the illegal response open to the accused - See paragraphs 66 to 70.

Narcotic Control - Topic 523

Offences - Defences - Botanical defence - The accused were charged with importing marihuana into Canada and with possession for the purpose of trafficking - It was not proven that the accused's marihuana was Cannabis sativa L., the only specie of cannabis mentioned in the Narcotic Control Act - The accused alleged the existence of other species - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the term in the Act included all marihuana and that the trial judge was correct in refusing to put the "botanical" defence to the jury - See paragraphs 71 to 82.

Practice - Topic 9010

Appeals - Restrictions on argument on appeal - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in both civil and criminal matters it is open to a respondent to advance any argument to sustain the judgment below, and he is not limited to the appellant's points of law - The court held that a party cannot, however, raise an entirely new argument that has not been raised below and in relation to which it might have been necessary to adduce evidence at trial - See paragraph 9.

Statutes - Topic 520

Interpretation - Time for determination of meaning of words - The Supreme Court of Canada stated the general rule that a statute must be construed as of the time of enactment (contemperanea expositio) - However, not all terms in all statutes must be confined to their original meanings; broad statutory categories are often held to include things unknown when the statute was enacted - See paragraphs 77 to 79.

Statutes - Topic 2505

Interpretation - Words and phrases - Technical terms - Scientific terms - The Supreme Court of Canada held that where the legislature has deliberately chosen a specific scientific or technical term to represent an equally specific and particular class of things, it would be contrary to Parliament's intention to redefine that term whenever the taxonomic consensus among members of the relevant scientific fraternity changes - The court held that the term Cannabis sativa L. in the Narcotic Control Act included all species of marihuana - See paragraph 79.

Words and Phrases

Exception, exemption, excuse or qualification prescribed by law - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the phrase "exception, exemption, excuse or qualification prescribed by law" as found in s. 7(2) of the Narcotic Control Act did not include the defence of necessity - See paragraphs 56 to 60.

Cases Noticed:

Brown v. Dean, [1910] A.C. 373, refd to. [para. 9].

Dormuth et al. v. Untereiner et al., [1964] S.C.R. 122, refd to. [para. 9].

S.S. Tordenskjold (1908), 41 S.C.R. 154, refd to. [para. 9].

Dairy Foods, Inc. v. Co-Op Agricole de Granby, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 651; 7 N.R. 421, refd to. [para. 9].

Reniger v. Fogossa (1551), 1 Plowd 1, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Dudley and Stephens (1884), 14 Q.B.D. 273, refd to. [para. 13].

U.S. v. Holmes (1842), 26 F. Cas. 360, refd to. [para. 13].

United States v. Bailey (1980), 444 U.S. 394, refd to. [para. 14].

United States v. Moylan (1969), 417 F. 2d 1002 (4th Cir.) cert. denied 397 U.S. 910, refd to. [para. 14].

United States v. Cullen (1971), 454 F. 2d 386 (7th Cir.) refd to. [para. 14].

United States v. Randall, 104 Daily Wash L. Rep. 2249, refd to. [para. 14].

United States v. Richardson, 588 F. 2d 1235, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616; 4 N.R. 277, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Morgentaler (1976), 33 C.R.N.S. 244, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Guenther (1978), 15 A.R. 102; 8 Alta L.R.(2d) 125, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Pootlass (1977), 1 C.R. (3d) 378 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Fry (1977), 36 C.C.C.(2d) 396 (Sask. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Morris (1981), 31 A.R. 189; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 163, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Gilkes (1978), 8 C.R.(3d) 159 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Doud (1982), 18 M.V.R. 146, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Byng (1977), 20 N.S.R.(2d) 125; 27 A.P.R. 125, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Walker (1979), 48 C.C.C.(2d) 126 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Salvador et al. (1981), 45 N.S.R.(2d) 192; 86 A.P.R. 192; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 521 (N.S.S.C. App. Div.), refd to. [para. 20].

Southwark London Borough Council v. Williams, [1971] Ch. 734, refd to. [para. 31].

D.P.P. (Northern Ireland) v. Lynch, [1975] A.C. 653, refd to. [para. 53].

Sharoe v. Wakefield (1888), 22 Q.B.D. 239, refd to. [para. 78].

Gambart v. Ball (1863), 32 L.J.C.P. 166, refd to. [para. 79].

Edwards v. A.G. Canada, [1930] A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 79].

A.G. Ontario v. A.G. Canada (Privy Council Appeals Reference), [1947] A.C. 127, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Hebert, Coombs and Spanks (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 423 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 81].

People v. Hamilton (1980), 105 Cal. App. 3d 113, refd to. [para. 81].

United States v. Lupo (1981), 652 F. 2d 723 (7th Cir.), refd to. [para. 81].

United States v. Kelly (1976), 527 F. 2d 961 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 81].

United States v. Gavic (1975), 520 F. 2d 1346 (8th Cir.), refd to. [para. 81].

United States v. Spann (1975), 515 F. 2d 579 (10th Cir.), refd to. [para. 81].

United States v. Walton (1975), 514 F. 2d 201 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 81].

United States v. Honneus (1974), 508 F. 2d 566 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 81].

United States v. Kinsey (1974), 505 F. 2d 1354 (2d Cir.), refd to. [para. 81].

United States v. Sifuentes (1974), 504 F. 2d 845 (4th Cir.), refd to. [para. 81].

United States v. Gaines (1974), 489 F. 2d 690 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 81].

United States v. Moore (1971), 446 F. 2d 448 (3d Cir.), refd to. [para. 81].

D.D.P. v. Morgan, [1975] 2 All E.R. 347 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 87].

State v. Green (1971), 470 S.W. 2d 565, refd to. [para. 88].

People v. Whipple (1929), 279 P. 1008 (Cal.), refd to. [para. 88].

People v. Noble (1969), 170 N.W. 2d 916 (Mich App.), refd to. [para. 88].

State v. St. Clair (1953), 262 S.W. 2d 25 (Mo. S.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 287 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

London Borough of Southwark v. Williams, [1971] 2 All E.R. 175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Instan, [1893] 1 Q.B. 450, refd to. [para. 100].

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transporation Co. (1910), 124 N.W. 221 (Minn.), refd to. [para. 102].

Ploof v. Putnam (1908), 71 A. 188 (Vt.), refd to. [para. 102].

Home Office v. Dorser Yacht Co., [1970] A.C. 1004, refd to. [para. 102].

Mouse's Case (1608), 12 Co. Rep. 63, refd to. [para. 104].

Amiens, Ch. corr., April 22, 1898, s. 1899.2.1 (Menard's case), refd to. [para. 104].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (S.C.C.), rule 29(1) [para. 9].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 7(3) [para. 21]; sect. 17 [para. 53].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, sect. 2 [para. 71]; sect. 7(2) [paras. 56 to 60].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Aristotle, Ethics, Book III, 1110 a. [para. 10].

Hobbs, Leviathan (Pelican Ed. 1968), p. 157 [para. 11].

Kant, Metaphysical Elements of Justice (Trans. Ladd 1965), pp. 41 [paras. 12, 92]; 42 [para. 92].

Blackstone's Commentaries (Abr. Ed., Wm. H. Browne; B.C. Gavit, Ed. (1941), Book 4, c. 2, p. 761 [para. 15].

Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England, vol. 2, pp. 108, 110 [para. 15].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 11, para. 26 [para. 16].

Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law (4th Ed.), pp. 193-194 [para. 17].

Williams, Glanville, Current Legal Problems, vol. 6, p. 216 [para. 17].

Necessity, The Defence of, English Law Commission No. 83, Part IV [para. 18].

Necessity, The Defence of, Law Reform Commission of Canada Working Paper 29, p. 93 [para. 24].

Packer, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, p. 113 [para. 28].

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Trans. Ross), p. 49 [para. 32].

Fletcher, George, Rethinking Criminal Law, pp. 804-805 [para. 33]; 813 [para. 35].

Lafave & Scott, Criminal Law, p. 388 [para. 39].

Ashworth, Reason, Logic and Criminal Liability, 91 Law Quarterly Rev. 106 [para. 50].

Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes (12th Ed. 1969), pp. 28 [para. 77]; 85 [para. 78]; 102, 243-244 [para. 79].

Driedger, The Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 163 [para. 78].

Fletcher, The Individualization of Excusing Conditions (1974), 47 So. Cal. L.R. 1264 [para. 88].

Hegel, Philosophy of Rights (Knox Trans. 1952), pp. 226-227 [para. 91].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law: The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), pp. 738-739 [para. 93].

Bentham, J., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (2nd Ed. 1823), vol. 2, p. 1 [para. 93].

Weinrib, E.J., The Case for a Duty to Rescue (1980), 90 Yale L.J. 247 [para. 102].

Counsel:

Clayton C. Ruby, for the appellant Nelson;

Jeff Green and Janice Dillon, for the appellants, Perka, Hines and Johnson;

S. David Frankel, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Ritchie, Dickson, Chouinard, Lamer and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on January 31 and February 1, 1984. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered on October 11, 1984, when the following opinions were filed:

Dickson, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 85;

Wilson, J. - see paragraphs 86 to 107.

Ritchie, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ., concurred with Dickson, J.