R. v. Reid (L.) et al., (2001) 202 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 69 (NFPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Case Date: March 14, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2001), 202 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 69 (NFPC)

R. v. Reid (L.) (2001), 202 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 69 (NFPC);

    608 A.P.R. 69

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. MY.044

Her Majesty the Queen v. Larry Reid and Larry Reid & Sons Ltd.

(Nos. 1300A-717 and 1300A-718)

Indexed As: R. v. Reid (L.) et al.

Newfoundland Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

May 4, 2001.

Summary:

A convenience store owner and his store were charged with selling tobacco to a per­son under 19 years of age (Tobacco Control Act, s. 4(1)). They raised the defence of entrapment and sought a stay of proceedings.

The Newfoundland Provincial Court con­victed both accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 205

Common law defences - Entrapment - Agents provocateur - A convenience store owner and his store were charged with selling tobacco to a minor (Tobacco Con­trol Act, s. 4(1)) - The minor had been hired to participate in "compliance checks" and was working with an inspector - They accused argued that the investigators' actions constituted entrapment as they had no basis to suspect that the store was sell­ing tobacco to minors and the investigative technique employed constituted a form of "random virtue testing" - The Newfound­land Provincial Court reviewed the defence of entrapment and convicted both accused - The investigators were conducting rea­sonable checks pursuant to a regulated enterprise - Compliance checks were a legitimate investigative technique - In the context of the regulation of a commercial activity, there was no requirement for suspicion prior to a compliance check being carried out.

Criminal Law - Topic 205.1

Common law defences - Entrapment - Requirement of reasonable suspicion or a bona fide investigation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 205 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 5266

Retailers - Offences - Selling tobacco to a minor - [See Criminal Law - Topic 205 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 577; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 67 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Pearson (E.) (1998), 233 N.R. 367; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 293 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].]

R. v. Brown (1998), 139 C.C.C.(3d) 493 (Ct. Mart. App. Ct.), affd. (1999), 139 C.C.C.(3d) 492 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; [1996] 2 W.W.R. 153; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 1; 29 W.C.B.(2d) 152, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 29 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Ahluwalia (B.) (2000), 138 O.A.C. 154; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Kirzner (1977), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 131 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 16, 18, footnote 3].

R. v. Amato (1982), 42 N.R. 487; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 127; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 47 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 18].

Amsden v. Rogers (1916), 26 C.C.C. 389 (Sask. T.D.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 3].

R. v. Ormerod, [1968] 1 C.C.C. 187 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 3].

R. v. Shipley, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 398 (Ont. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 3].

R. v. Chernecki (1971), 4 C.C.C.(2d) 556 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 3].

R. v. Bonnar (1975), 14 N.S.R.(2d) 365; 11 A.P.R. 365; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 3; 50].

R. v. Benedetti (R.F.), [1997] 7 W.W.R. 330; 200 A.R. 179; 146 W.A.C. 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20, footnote 4].

R. v. Voutsis (1989), 73 Sask.R. 287; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 451 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. J.S. (2001), 139 O.A.C. 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Fortin (1989), 33 O.A.C. 123; 47 C.R.R. 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Myers (M.R.) (1999), 185 Sask.R. 281 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 26].

R. v. Wolfe (E.) et al. (1995), 134 Sask.R. 192; 101 W.A.C. 192; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 515 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Sobeys Inc. (2000), 181 N.S.R.(2d) 263; 560 A.P.R. 263 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Barnes (1991), 121 N.R. 267; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Naoufal (N.) (1994), 70 O.A.C. 214; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Dikah - see R. v. Naoufal (N.).

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 257, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Lore (1997), 116 C.C.C.(3d) 255 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Bond (W.C.) (1993), 135 A.R. 329; 33 W.A.C. 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Matthiessen (C.B.) (1999), 228 A.R. 391; 188 W.A.C. 391; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Au Canada Monetary Exchange Inc., [1999] B.C.J. No. 455 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Perfect (R.T.) (2001), 190 N.S.R.(2d) 37; 594 A.P.R. 37 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 8 C.R.(4th) 145; 84 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Maxwell (1990), 42 O.A.C. 71; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Ziade (N.), [1999] O.A.C. Uned. 350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Showman (1988), 90 N.R. 262; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Tobacco Control Act, S.N. 1993, c. T-4.1, sect. 3(2)(c) [para. 2]; sect. 4(1) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brauti, Peter, and Welsch, Candice, Illegal Police Conduct in the Course of a Bona fide Investigation (2000), 43 C.L.Q. 64, generally [para. 34, footnote 6].

France, Problems in the Definition of Entrapment (1988), 22 U.B.C.L. Rev. 1, p. 12 [para. 22, footnote 5].

Counsel:

Jennifer Colford, for the Crown;

James Goudie, for the accuseds.

This matter was heard on March 14, 2001, before Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland Provincial Court, who delivered the follow­ing decision on May 4, 2001.