R. v. Santangelo, Passante, Martel and Cantafio, (1981) 9 Man.R.(2d) 370 (CoCt)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: April 15, 1981
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1981), 9 Man.R.(2d) 370 (CoCt)

R. v. Santangelo (1981), 9 Man.R.(2d) 370 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Santangelo, Passante, Martel and Cantafio

Indexed As: R. v. Santangelo, Passante, Martel and Cantafio

Manitoba County Court of Winnipeg

Coleman, C.C.J.

April 15, 1981.

Summary:

This case arose out of charges against four accused of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to the Narcotic Control Act.

The Manitoba County Court acquitted two of the accused and convicted the other two.

Evidence - Topic 203

Inferences and weight of evidence - Inference - Defined - The Manitoba County Court referred to a discussion defining the word "inference" and distinguishing it from the word "conjecture" - See paragraphs 22 and 23.

Evidence - Topic 305

Circumstantial evidence - Rule in Hodge's Case - Charge of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to the Narcotic Control Act - The Manitoba County Court discussed the rule in Hodge's Case in reference to making findings of possession based on circumstantial evidence.

Evidence - Topic 2283

Judicial notice - Particular matters - Criminal acts - The Manitoba County Court stated that judicial notice could be taken of the existence or use of large sums of money, weigh scales and boxes of plastic bags as paraphernalia common to the drug world - See paragraph 33.

Narcotic Control - Topic 578

Offences - Possession - Joint possession - The Criminal Code of Canada, s. 3(4)(b) - The Manitoba County Court stated that the Crown must prove knowledge and consent beyond a reasonable doubt before a finding of joint or constructive possession can be made - The court further stated that control is not necessarily an essential element to possession under s. 3(4)(b) - See paragraphs 26 and 30.

Narcotic Control - Topic 703

Offences - Trafficking - Possession for purpose of trafficking - The accused was the tenant of premises which the police entered and found 10 1/2 pounds of marijuana in a closed green garbage bag - The marijuana was located in the family room with other persons, weigh scales and small plastic bags - The accused, who was in the kitchen, told the police he knew others had a bag of "home grown" and that they thought his place was safe - The Manitoba County Court held that the accused was guilty of possession of the marijuana for the purpose of trafficking - See paragraphs 31 and 32.

Narcotic Control - Topic 703

Offences - Trafficking - Possession for purpose of trafficking - The police found the accused in a residential recreation room with others - The room contained a set of weigh scales, a box of plastic bags and a closed green garbage bag containing 10 1/2 pounds of marijuana - The accused arrived at the premises a few minutes before the police - The police found a small quantity of marijuana on the accused - The Manitoba County Court held that the accused did not have possession of the large quantity of marijuana and possession of the small quantity was not evidence of possession of the large quantity - See paragraphs 35 and 40.

Narcotic Control - Topic 703

Offences - Trafficking - Possession for purpose of trafficking - The police found the accused in a residential recreation room with others - The room contained a set of weigh scales, a box of plastic bags and a closed green garbage bag containing 10 1/2 pounds of marijuana - There was no evidence of the accused's time of arrival at the premises - The Manitoba County Court held that the accused was not in possession of the marijuana - See paragraphs 41 and 42.

Words and Phrases

Inference - The Manitoba County Court discussed the meaning of the word "inference" as used in criminal law.

Words and Phrases

Possession - The Manitoba County Court discussed the meaning of the word "possession" as defined by s. 2 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, and s. 3(4) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Harvey (1969), 1 N.B.R.(2d) 587; 7 C.R.N.S. 183 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. M. (1979), 9 C.R.(3d) 370 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Marshall, [1969] 3 C.C.C. 149; 5 C.R.N.S. 348 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Caldwell (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 285; 19 C.R.N.S. 293, consd. [para. 5].

R. v. McRae et al., [1967] 3 C.C.C. 132; 50 C.R.N.S. 325 (Sask. C.A.); [1967] S.C.R. 8, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Orman and Mascotte (1975), 12 N.S.R.(2d) 217; 6 A.P.R. 217; 32 C.R.N.S. 364 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Blondin, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 1; 2 C.C.C.(2d) 118, affd. [1972] 1 W.W.R. 479; 4 C.C.C.(2d) 566 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Aiello (1978), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 485 (Ont. C.A.), affd. (1980), 30 N.R. 558 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Babiuk and Stefaniuk, [1975] 3 W.W.R. 615; 21 C.C.C.(2d) 464 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Douglas (1977), 33 C.C.C.(2d) 395; 1 C.R.(3d) 238 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Girvin v. The King (1912), 45 S.C.R. 167, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Sunbeam Corporation (Canada) Ltd., [1967] 3 C.C.C. 148; 1 C.R.N.S. 183 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. St. Stephen Woodworking Ltd. (1972), 5 N.B.R.(2d) 230; 8 C.C.C.(2d) 377 (N.B.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Martin (1948), 92 C.C.C. 257; 7 C.R. 44 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Lombardo (1967), 3 C.R.N.S. 19 (Ont. C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Duffy (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 519 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Beaver v. The Queen, [1957] S.C.R. 531; 118 C.C.C. 129; 26 C.R. 193, consd. [paras. 5, 27].

R. v. Dick and Malley (1969), 7 C.R.N.S. 75; 68 W.W.R.(N.S.) 437 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Dietrich (1970), 11 C.R.N.S. 22 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Clayton (1978), 3 C.R.(3d) 90, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Clancy (1979-80), 3 W. Cr. B. 296 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

McGreery v. D.P.P. (1973), 57 Cr. App. R. 424 (H.L.), consd. [para. 18].

Hodge's Case (1838), 2 Lewin C.C. 227; 168 E.R. 1136, folld. [para. 19].

R. v. Kuhn (No. 1), [1974] 1 W.W.R. 650 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Smith, [1973] 3 W.W.R. 81 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Paul (1975), 4 N.R. 435, consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Cooper (1977), 14 N.R. 181; 37 C.R.N.S. 1, refd to. [para. 21].

Jones v. Great Western R. Co. (1931), 144 L.T. 194, consd. [para. 22].

R. v. Caccamo (1975), 4 N.R. 133; 29 C.R.N.S. 78 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 25].

R. v. Hook and Berehulke (1977), 36 C.C.C.(2d) 190 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Fuller (1974), 1 N.R. 110, consd. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 3(4)(a), sect. 3(4)(b) [para. 24].

Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N-1, sect. 2 [para. 24]; sect. 8 [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

MacFarlane, Drug Offences in Canada, c. 4 [para. 5]; pp. 63 [para. 27]; 69 [para. 23].

Robinson, Prof., Circumstantial Evidence: The Rise and Fall of the Rule in Hodge's Case (1978), 2 C.R.(3d) 148 [para. 21].

Counsel:

J. Webster, for the Crown;

H. Wolch, for the accused, Santangelo;

S. Nozick, for the accused, Passante;

R. Minuk, for the accused, Martel;

P. Walsh, for the accused, Cantafio.

This case was heard by COLEMAN, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court of Winnipeg, who on April 15, 1981, delivered the following oral judgment: