R. v. Rowbotham; R. v. Roblin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 834
Robert Rowbotham
and David Roblin Appellants
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Rowbotham; R. v. Roblin
File Nos.: 23302, 23300.
1993: December 8.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Criminal law ‑‑ Conspiracy ‑‑ Conspiracy to traffic in narcotics ‑‑ Evidence, if accepted, establishing that alleged trafficking offences have a real and substantial connection to Canada ‑‑ Trial judge erring in directing verdict of acquittal ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 465(3) ‑‑ Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N‑1, s. 2.
Cases Cited
Applied: Libman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 465(3) [rep. & sub. c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 61(4)].
Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N‑1, s. 2 "traffic".
APPEALS from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1992), 60 O.A.C. 75, 76 C.C.C. (3d) 542, setting aside the accused's acquittals and ordering a new trial. Appeals dismissed.
Philip Campbell and Delmar Doucette, for the appellants.
D. D. Graham Reynolds, Q.C., and David Littlefield, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
Lamer C.J. ‑‑ We reserve our right to hand down additional reasons as regards the longstanding practice of the manner in which directed verdicts are dealt with given the circumstances of this case and the jury's great reluctance and misunderstanding of what it was being ordered to do. Subject to that, Justice Sopinka will give the reasons for the Court.
Sopinka J. ‑‑ The offence which is the subject of the charges here is a conspiracy to "traffic" in narcotics as defined in s. 2(a) and (b) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N‑1. The offences charged consist of agreements to offer to sell a narcotic. We will assume for the purpose of this case that the appellants' interpretation of s. 2(a) and (b) is correct and the transactions referred to in s. 2(a) and (b) must take place in Canada.
In our view, s. 465(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, does not preclude the application of the principles in Libman v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 178, if the substantive offence which is the subject of the conspiracy has a real and substantial connection to Canada.
In our view, there is evidence which, if accepted, establishes that the offences of trafficking alleged here have a real and substantial connection to Canada and we agree with the Court of Appeal that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict of acquittal.
The appeals are dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the appellant Rowbotham: Nakatsuru & Doucette, Toronto.
Solicitors for the appellant Roblin: Copeland, Liss, Campbell, Toronto.
Solicitor for the respondent: John C. Tait, Ottawa.