R. v. Terrence, (1983) 47 N.R. 8 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 24, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1983), 47 N.R. 8 (SCC);[1983] CarswellOnt 67;147 DLR (3d) 724;[1983] 1 SCR 357;4 CCC (3d) 193;33 CR (3d) 193;1983 CanLII 51 (SCC);[1983] SCJ No 28 (QL);47 NR 8

R. v. Terrence (1983), 47 N.R. 8 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Terrence

Indexed As: R. v. Terrence

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre and Chouinard, JJ.

March 24, 1983.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession of stolen goods contrary to s. 312 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The trial judge convicted the accused. The accused appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction of the accused. The judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal is set out below - see paragraphs 21 to 45. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1841

Possession of stolen goods - Essential elements - Possession or control - The 17 year old accused was invited by Hayes for a ride in a car which was recently stolen by Hayes - The accused was a passenger in the car when it was stopped by police - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the acquittal of the accused on a charge of possession of stolen goods - The court stated that s. 3(4) of the Criminal Code was inapplicable to prove possession by the accused because of the absence of any evidence to show that the accused had control of the car.

Words and Phrases

Possession - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "possession" as found in s. 3(4) and 312 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; (1978), 24 N.R. 199, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Lou Hay Hung (1946), 85 C.C.C. 308, refd to. [paras. 14 and 33].

R. v. Colvin and Gladue, [1943] 1 D.L.R. 20, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Sigouin et al., [1966] 1 C.C.C. 235; 43 C.R. 211, refd to. [paras. 17 and 36].

R. v. Fournier (1979), 43 C.C.C.(2d) 468, refd to. [paras. 17 and 37].

R. v. Bangle (1944), 83 C.C.C. 128, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Novak (1955), 112 C.C.C. 347, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Sherman, 62 B.C.R. 241; 1 C.R. 153; [1946] 1 W.W.R. 479, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Bunyon (1954), 110 C.C.C. 119, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Dick and Malley (1969), 7 C.R.N.S. 75; 68 W.W.R. 437, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Caldwell (1972), 19 C.R.N.S. 293, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Hook and Berehulke (1976), 36 C.C.C.(2d) 190, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Orman and Marcotte (1976), 12 N.S.R.(2d) 217; 6 A.P.R. 217; 25 C.C.C.(2d) 337, refd to. [para. 39].

Zanini v. The Queen, [1968] 2 C.C.C. 1, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. McCarthy (1963), 48 Cr. App. R. 111, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Boles (1978), 43 C.C.C.(2d) 414 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 3(4) [para. 2]; sect. 312, sect. 316 [para. 42].

Counsel:

S. Casey Hill, for the appellant;

Mark L. Kerbel, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE and CHOUINARD, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on March 22, 1982.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by RITCHIE, J., on March 24, 1983.