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.

Criminal law - Evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal properly exercised its jurisdiction to hear an appeal on “a question of law alone” in setting aside the judgment of acquittal and entering a conviction - Whether the trial judge did not provide adequate reasons or explanations on Charter violations - Whether the alleged insufficiency in the trial judge’s reasons amounted to an error of law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by retrying the Charter issues and redefining the issues.

The statement of facts is derived from the reasons of the Court of Appeal. Shortly after midnight on May 14, 2003, an officer of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary saw a vehicle parked off by itself, in the dark, near three businesses, a 24-hour doughnut shop and gas station and restaurant that were closed. The vehicle was not running and the lights were off. Two individuals were seated in the front seats. The police officer turned off the lights of his vehicle and drove up along side the passenger side of the parked vehicle. He stopped adjacent to the passenger window, three to four feet to the side. The occupants of the vehicle were apparently so engrossed in what they were doing that they did not, at first, see the officer. When they did see him, they reacted with shock. The officer testified that he saw Mr. Chaisson, who was in the driver’s seat, throw something onto the floor and that he appeared to be trying to stuff something under the seat.

The officer asked Mr. Chaisson and the passenger to get out of the vehicle, which they did. As the passenger got out, the officer saw a plastic bag, containing what appeared to him to be marihuana, on the floor and a small piece of what appeared to be marihuana on the seat, both in plain view. The officer arrested Mr. Chaisson, placed him in the patrol car, and called for assistance. The passenger was also arrested and detained beside Mr. Chaisson’s vehicle. The officer then undertook a search of the vehicle during which he found two sets of scales in plain view, a quantity of marihuana under the driver’s seat and more marihuana in the trunk.

The Appellant was charged with possession of cannabis (marihuana) for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. At trial, the trial judge concluded that the Appellant’s rights under the Charter had been breached. Relying on s. 24(2) of the Charter, the trial judge excluded the evidence obtained from the search of the vehicle. An acquittal was entered based on the lack of evidence. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, overturned the acquittal, entered a conviction on s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and remitted the matter to the trial judge for sentencing.