Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The Respondent Jean-Paul Larche pleaded guilty on certain charges, including conspiracy to produce, possess and traffic in cannabis. He also pleaded guilty on a count of having committed an offence for the benefit of a criminal organization.

In his submissions on sentence, the Respondent, relying on s. 725(1)(c) Cr.C., urged the court to consider certain facts that, in his opinion, “formed part of the circumstances” of the offences with which he was charged, namely that he had exported money and cannabis to the United States and that he had had in his possession in Vermont money derived from trafficking in cannabis. The Appellant objected to this request on the basis that it would be an impediment to an extradition request the American authorities intended to make: Mr. Larche was charged in the United States with conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and further charges were possible. The court dismissed the Appellant’s objection and “noted” the following facts in the indictment:

[translation] 1. Between December 2001 and July 2002, Jean-Paul Larche took part in the exportation of marijuana from the province of Quebec to Massachusetts on three occasions, for the benefit of a criminal organization headed by Marc-André Cusson;

2. Between December 2001 and July 2002, Jean-Paul Larche carried from the United States to Canada on several occasions sums of money, in total between $500,000 and $600,000, derived from the sale of marijuana, for the benefit of a criminal organization headed by Marc-André Cusson; and

3. On May 31, 2002, Jean-Paul Larche had in his possession in the State of Vermont $110,000 in American currency derived from the sale of marijuana, for the benefit of a criminal organisation headed by Marc-André Cusson.

The Appellant contested, by way of a motion for certiorari, the judge’s decision to consider certain facts that, in his opinion, formed part of the circumstances of the offence. The Appellant was of the view that the trial judge had exceeded his jurisdiction in applying s. 725(1)(c) Cr.C. The Superior Court dismissed the motion. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the basis that the facts set out in the third paragraph of the note had no real and substantial connection to Canada.