Case information

Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Error by trial judge in interpreting facts — Concept of possession — Relevance of ownership — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law by not ordering new trial or acquitting applicant even though it acknowledged that trial judge had erred in interpreting certain facts and that error concerned elements that contributed to judge’s conclusion — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in stating that ownership is factor relevant to concept of possession as provided for in s. 4(3) of Criminal Code.

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.

During a search of the residence owned by the applicant, Stéphane Belval, more than a thousand fresh cannabis plants and more than a hundred pounds of dried cannabis were seized. At the time of the search, the police arrested the individual responsible for the electricity bill since Mr. Belval’s purchase of the house, who was present at the scene. In addition to the strong odour of cannabis detected upon approaching the lot, the police officers found various items used for production: bottles of fertilizer in the living room, pruning shears on the kitchen counter, grass trimmer and rake on the porch, additional air conditioning system, fans, carbon filters, barrels for watering, neon lighting and timer in the basement. The evidence showed that the basement of the house was entirely dedicated to cannabis production and that one of the bedrooms on the first floor, which was visible from the hall, was being used as a nursery for young cannabis plants.

Judge Leduc of the Court of Québec convicted Mr. Belval of possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, production of cannabis and theft of electricity. She found that the uncontradicted evidence satisfied her, logically and beyond any reasonable doubt, that Mr. Belval had committed the offences. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the guilty verdicts were based on the evidence and were reasonable, even disregarding the erroneous finding of fact that Mr. Belval had been seen locking the door of the residence when his co-accused had left. Its intervention was not warranted. All of the evidence, considered collectively, was sufficient to support the conclusion that Mr. Belval was also involved in cannabis production, that he knew about it and that he had control over it.