Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

Supreme Court of Canada

Criminal law — Narcotics — Possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking — Nature of the substance seized — Procedure of analysis — "Evidence to the contrary" within the meaning of s. 9 of the Narcotic Control Act — Trial judge erred as to the scope of the Oliver case.

Cases Cited

Referred to: Oliver v. The Queen,[1981] 2 S.C.R. 240.

APPEALS from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1984] C.A. 411, allowing the Crown's appeals from the acquittals of the accused and ordering new trials. Appeals dismissed.

[Page 691]

Jean Gobeil and Pierre Dugré, for the appellants.

Claude Bélanger, Q.C., for the respondent.

English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by

BEETZ J.—It will not be necessary to hear you Mr. Bélanger.

We are all of the view that these appeals should be dismissed.

In agreement with the reasons of LeBel J.A., we are of the view that the trial judge erred in law in considering that the judgment Oliver v. The Queen, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 240, had established binding standards which he had to follow.

Moreover, we are in agreement with the reasons of Vallerand J.A. when he said: [TRANSLATION] "The trial judge based his decision on the existence of a reasonable doubt with regard to essential facts though, in the course of the trial, he had indicated he was satisfied by the proof of the same facts and as against the Crown, had decisively put an end to it."

The appeals are dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellants: Jean Gobeil, Montréal; Pierre Dugré, Shawinigan.

Solicitor for the respondent: Frank lacobucci, Ottawa.





Save and organize search results from SCC and CanLII, get alerts.

Get started with Lexbox


Twitter Notices

Get real-time notices of new Supreme Court decisions via Twitter.

Follow Lexum on Twitter


For 20 years now, the Lexum site has been the main public source for Supreme Court decisions.