Les éléments essentiels de l'infraction de possession aux fins de trafic

R. v. Saikaley, 2013 ONSC 1854 (CanLII)

Lien vers la décision

[179]      Halsbury’s Law of Canada – Controlled Substances and Drugs, HDS-5, sets out the essential components for the charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking:

Possession for the purpose of trafficking:  To convict an accused of possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following essential elements:

                                 1.         That the accused was in possession of a substance;

                                 2.         That the substance was the one named in the charge or another narcotic;

                                 3.         That the accused knew that the substance was the one named in the charge or another narcotic; and

                                 4.         That the accused had possession of the substance for the purpose of trafficking.

With regard to the requirement that the accused know that the substance was a narcotic, the Crown may prove this essential element by establishing actual knowledge or wilful blindness (R. v. Giammarco, [2011] O.J. No. 5162, 2011 ONSC 6649 (Ont. S.C.J.) (CanLII)).  The Crown is not required to establish that the accused knew that he or she possessed the specific drug described in the indictment as long as the accused knew the drug was a narcotic… (R. v. Giammarco,  [2011] O.J. No. 5162,  2011 ONSC 6649 (Ont. S.C.J.); R. v. Rai,  2011 BCCA 341 (CanLII), [2011] B.C.J. No. 1530.  309 B.C.A.C. 103 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal refused  [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 452 (S.C.C.); R. v. Williams,  2009 ONCA 342 (CanLII), [2009] O.J. No. 1692,  95 O.R. (3d) 660,  244 C.C.C. (3d) 138 (Ont. C.A.)).

…

Proof of purpose to traffic:  The Crown may adduce expert opinion evidence, generally from a police officer, of circumstances present that the officer states are indicia of trafficking (R. v. Ballony-Reeder, 2001 BCCA 293 (CanLII), [2001] B.C.J. No. 756,  153 C.C.C. (3d) 511 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Bryan,  2003 CanLII 24337 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 1960,  175 C.C.C. (3d) 285 (Ont. C.A.)).  As well, circumstantial evidence may be led to prove the intent to traffic, such as the value and quantity of the drug seized, as well as the anticipated time necessary for consumption (R. v. McIntosh,  [2003] O.J. No. 1267,  [2003] O.T.C. 246 (Ont. S.C.J.)); the finding of any paraphernalia such as scales, baggies and “debt” lists indicative of sale as opposed to personal use; observations of actual drug transactions (R. v. Do,  2003 CanLII 24750 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 1720,  171 O.A.C. 92 (Ont. C.A.)); association with drug addicts who arguably are potential buyers (R. v. Douglas,  [1977] O.J. No. 388,  33 C.C.C. (2d) 395 (Ont. C.A.)); and telephone calls involving attempts to purchase drugs from the accused (R. v. Lear,  [2012] N.J. No. 151,  323 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 318 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.)).

Included offence:  The offence of trafficking does not include the offence of possession (R. v. Shewfelt, [1972] B.C.J. No. 664, 6 C.C.C. (2d) 304 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Drysdelle,  [1978] N.B.J. No 118, 41 C.C.C. (2d) 238 (N.B.C.A.); R. v. Whynott, [1978] N.J. No. 27,  16 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 14 (Nfld. C.A.)).  Attempted possession for the purposes of trafficking is an offence known to law (R. v. Chan, 2003 CanLII 52165 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 3233, 178 C.C.C. (3d) 269 (Ont. C.A.)).