R. v. Van Santen (F.), (2009) 473 A.R. 194 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 19, 2009
• Citations: (2009), 473 A.R. 194 (PC);2009 ABPC 162

R. v. Van Santen (F.) (2009), 473 A.R. 194 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. JL.035

Her Majesty The Queen v. Frederick Van Santen (061571568P1; 2009 ABPC 162)

Indexed As: R. v. Van Santen (F.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

June 19, 2009.

Summary:

The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited drug for the purpose of trafficking. The accused alleged that when the police stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger, the driver forced him to hide drugs on his person. The accused claimed that he feared the driver and held the drugs for him under duress.

The Alberta Provincial Court accepted the accused's testimony that the driver passed him the drugs to hide as the police approached the vehicle. However, as the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting under duress, the court found the accused guilty, as a party, of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Criminal Law - Topic 202

General principles - Common law defences - Duress - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "individuals relying upon duress must act solely as a result of threats of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or another person ... Mere fear does not constitute duress in the absence of a threat. A threat can be expressed or implied. Where the threat is implied the threshold question is whether the acts, conduct or words of the person who made the threat could reasonably have constituted as a threat of the required kind ... The threat must be of such gravity or seriousness that the accused believed that the threat would be carried out. In addition, the threat must be such that it operates on the mind of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence ... A threat of future harm may be sufficient to raise duress. There must be a close temporal link between the threat and the harm threatened ... the threat must be assessed on a modified objective basis" - See paragraphs 101 to 102.

Criminal Law - Topic 202

General principles - Common law defences - Duress - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2744 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 2744

Attempts, conspiracies, accessories and parties - Parties to offences - What constitutes aiding and abetting - The accused was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police - The driver, a known drug trafficker, passed 24 grams of methamphetamine to the accused to hide - The drugs were found when the police searched the accused - At issue was whether the accused was in possession of the drugs where he allegedly held them under duress because he stated that he had no other option because he feared what the driver would do to him if he did not - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the accused knew, or was wilfully blind, that he was holding illegal drugs - He exercised control over the drugs by hiding them on his person - He did not take the drugs for the purpose of surrendering them to the police - They were found only when he was searched - The accused was in "possession" of the drugs - After considering the evidence of experts and the circumstantial evidence (significant quantity of the drug, cell phones, baggies, large amounts of cash, stun gun in vehicle for protection), the court inferred that the driver possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking - Although the court rejected the submission that the accused and driver were involved in a joint enterprise, the accused was guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking as a party for aiding the driver in his drug trafficking activities by hiding the drugs from police - The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the common law defence of duress did not apply - Although the accused testified that he feared the driver, he did not allege any threat by word, act or gesture, or that he would be harmed if he did not take the drugs - An implied threat was not made out - Further, the accused had a safe avenue of escape by voluntarily turning the drugs over to the police - Instead, he continued to hide them until they were found on a search.

Narcotic Control - Topic 580

Offences - Possession - General - Knowledge - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "recklessness will not suffice to constitute the knowledge necessary to support a conviction for possession or possession for the purpose of trafficking. However, actual knowledge or the imputed knowledge attributed to an accused person through wilful blindness will suffice" - See paragraph 48.

Narcotic Control - Topic 703

Offences - Trafficking - Possession for purposes of trafficking - [See Criminal Law - Topic 2744 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lifchus (W.) (1997), 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. D.W. (1991), 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Chan (K.Y.) (2003), 175 O.A.C. 91; 178 C.C.C.(3d) 269 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2004), 328 N.R. 398; 195 O.A.C. 396; 180 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Hess (No. 1) (1948), 94 C.C.C. 48 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Beaver v. R. (1957), 118 C.C.C. 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Spooner (1954), 109 C.C.C. 57 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Hall (1959), 124 C.C.C. 238 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Guiney (1961), 130 C.C.C. 407 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Christie (1978), 21 N.B.R.(2d) 261; 37 A.P.R. 261; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 282 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Glushek (1978), 9 A.R. 539; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. York (J.A.) (2005), 208 B.C.A.C. 184; 344 W.A.C. 184; 193 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Larier (1960), 129 C.C.C. 297 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Pierce Fisheries Ltd., [1970] 5 C.C.C. 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Peterson (1970), 1 C.C.C.(2d) 197 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

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. 34].

R. v. Blondin (1970), 2 C.C.C.(2d) 118 (B.C.C.A.), affd. (1971), 4 C.C.C.(2d) 566 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Burgess, [1970] 3 C.C.C. 268 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Verge (1976), 18 N.S.R.(2d) 299; 20 A.P.R. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City) (1978), 21 N.R. 295; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Sansregret (1985), 58 N.R. 123; 35 Man.R.(2d) 1; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 223 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Jorgensen (R.) et al., [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55; 189 N.R. 1; 87 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Duong (T.D.) (1998), 108 O.A.C. 378; 39 O.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) et al. (2008), 437 A.R. 301; 433 W.A.C. 301; 2008 ABCA 327, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Théroux (R.) (1993), 151 N.R. 104; 54 Q.A.C. 184; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General) (1992), 135 N.R. 321; 125 A.R. 241; 14 W.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Creighton (1993), 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 346 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Hamilton (R.L.) (2005), 336 N.R. 302; 371 A.R. 201; 354 W.A.C. 201; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Aiello (1978), 30 N.R. 559; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 485 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Tewari (1987), 36 C.C.C.(3d) 150 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Rathod (G.) (1993), 61 Q.A.C. 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Sandhu (1989), 35 O.A.C. 118; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 492 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Wood (C.) (2007), 409 A.R. 377; 402 W.A.C. 377; 218 C.C.C.(3d) 386 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Bryan (M.R.) (2003), 171 O.A.C. 391; 175 C.C.C.(3d) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Oakes (1983), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 339 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. MacFarlane (K.R.) (1992), 100 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 302; 318 A.P.R. 302; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 54 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Dudar (1984), 29 Man.R.(2d) 57 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Barskihian (1984), 12 W.C.B. 153 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. McIntosh (O.), [2003] O.T.C. 246 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Alberts (T.) et al. (1998), 84 O.T.C. 27; 42 W.C.B.(2d) 277 (Gen. Div.), affd. [1999] O.A.C. Uned. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Pretty (1982), 34 A.R. 313; 66 C.C.C.(2d) 43 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Stanger et al. (1983), 46 A.R. 241; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Twigge (H.), [1997] 5 W.W.R. 572; 148 Sask.R. 254; 134 W.A.C. 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Roach (2004), 192 C.C.C.(3d) 557 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Woolworth (F.W.) Co. (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 23 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. McDaid (1974), 19 C.C.C.(2d) 572 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Maciel (R.) (2007), 222 O.A.C. 174; 219 C.C.C.(3d) 516 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Dunlop and Sylvester (1979), 27 N.R. 153; 47 C.C.C.(2d) 93 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Hibbert (L.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973; 184 N.R. 165; 84 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Greyeyes (E.R.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 825; 214 N.R. 43; 152 Sask.R. 294; 140 W.A.C. 294, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Jackson (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 331 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Ryckman (1981), 64 C.C.C.(2d) 192 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Bates, [1984] A.J. No. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Roan, Brown and Sande (1985), 57 A.R. 296; 17 C.C.C.(3d) 534 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Arason (R.H.) and Derosier (G.L.) (1992), 21 B.C.A.C. 20; 37 W.A.C. 20; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Butthof, [2006] B.C.J. No. 1838 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson (1984), 55 N.R. 1; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Ruzic (M.) (2001), 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235; 153 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Hebert (D.M.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 272; 197 N.R. 277; 77 B.C.A.C. 1; 126 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Carker, [1967] S.C.R. 114, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Paquette, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 189; 11 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Mena (1987), 20 O.A.C. 50; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 304 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Li (B.) et al. (2002), 156 O.A.C. 364; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

Counsel:

A. Halliday, for the Crown;

M. Marcovitch, for the accused.

This case was heard on June 19, 2009, at Calgary, Alberta, before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 19, 2009.