R. v. Pham (K.T.), (2005) 204 O.A.C. 299 (CA)

• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 26, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2005), 204 O.A.C. 299 (CA);2005 CanLII 44671 (ON CA);2005 CanLII 44671 (NS CA);77 OR (3d) 401;203 CCC (3d) 326;36 CR (6th) 200;[2005] OJ No 5127 (QL);204 OAC 299

R. v. Pham (K.T.) (2005), 204 O.A.C. 299 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.040

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Kim Thi Pham (appellant)

(C41829)

Indexed As: R. v. Pham (K.T.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

McMurtry, C.J.O., Blair, J.A. and Kozak, J.(ad hoc)

December 2, 2005.

Summary:

The accused appealed her conviction on a charge of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, McMurtry, C.J.O., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Narcotic Control - Topic 577

Offences - Possession - General - Constructive possession - A neighbour observed apparent drug transactions at the accused's apartment door - The accused had a roommate (Nguyen) - The police set up surveillance - They observed the accused leave on March 2002 - The police arrested a visitor and seized crack cocaine - The police searched the apartment on March 5, 2002, before the accused returned to the apartment - Nguyen was the only person present - The police discovered a small black cloth purse in plain view in the main bathroom containing 9.8 grams of crack cocaine - They also discovered an open pink make-up bag containing $165 in mostly $20 bills - The accused was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's finding that the accused had constructive possession of the cocaine either alone or jointly with Nguyen - The accused was a key figure in a drug trafficking scheme carried out of her apartment - The two bags were consistent with the accused's personal toiletries and were found amidst her personal toiletries and make-up - The main bedroom was littered with woman's clothing, contained documents, including the accused's passport, and was the source of drug-related "dime bags" and cut up newspapers and grocery bags - The circumstantial evidence demonstrated much more than a passive knowledge of the drugs as well as an element of control over them.

Narcotic Control - Topic 578

Offences - Possession - General - Joint possession - [See Narcotic Control - Topic 577 ].

Narcotic Control - Topic 580

Offences - Possession - General - Knowledge - [See Narcotic Control - Topic 577 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Caldwell (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 285 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Grey (E.) (1996), 89 O.A.C. 394; 28 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Terrence, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 357; 47 N.R. 8, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Williams (C.) (1998), 110 O.A.C. 348; 40 O.R.(3d) 301 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Barreau (S.N.) (1991), 9 B.C.A.C. 290; 19 W.A.C. 290 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Chambers (1985), 9 O.A.C. 228; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 16, 42].

R. v. Sparling, [1988] O.J. No. 107 (H.C.), revd. (1988), 31 O.A.C. 244 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Jenner (J.P.) (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 184; 340 W.A.C. 184; 195 C.C.C.(3d) 364 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Caswell v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [1940] A.C. 152 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Lukianchuk (B.J.) et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 119; 2001 BCSC 119, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Kelly, [1967] 1 C.C.C. 215 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 45].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Coates (J.) (2003), 172 O.A.C. 330; 176 C.C.C.(3d) 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Zanini v. R., [1968] 2 C.C.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

Counsel:

Craig Parry, for the appellant;

Andrew Sabbadini, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on August 26, 2005, by McMurtry, C.J.O., Blair, J.A., and Kozak, J.(ad hoc), of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was released on December 2, 2005, and the following opinions were filed:

Kozak, J.(ad hoc) (Blair, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 32;

McMurtry, C.J.O., dissenting - see paragraphs 33 to 53.