R. v. F., R.
Court upheld convictions on Counts 1 and 2 and the possession of cocaine because there was ample evidence to support findings of wilful blindness and possession; conviction on Count 3 was set aside because the evidence was insufficient to support wilful blindness or recent possession of stolen property; the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C40047
- Parties
- Appellant: R. F.; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 March 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; convictions on Counts 1 and 2 and possession of cocaine upheld; conviction on Count 3 set aside; associated 12-month sentence for Count 3 set aside; forfeiture order upheld under s.490.1(2); sentence appeal otherwise dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Wilful Blindness, Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Stolen Property, Forfeiture Under Criminal Code, Sentence Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
R. F.
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether evidence supported convictions on Counts 1 and 2 and the possession of cocaine
- 2 Whether evidence supported conviction on Count 3 for possession of stolen property (home theatre/DVD equipment)
- 3 Whether the forfeiture order was properly made under s.490.1(2) of the Criminal Code
Ratio Decidendi
Court upheld convictions on Counts 1 and 2 and the possession of cocaine because there was ample evidence to support findings of wilful blindness and possession; conviction on Count 3 was set aside because the evidence was insufficient to support wilful blindness or recent possession of stolen property; the forfeiture order was properly made under s.490.1(2) and the sentence appeal was dismissed except that the Count 3 sentence was vacated.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; convictions on Counts 1 and 2 and possession of cocaine upheld; conviction on Count 3 set aside; associated 12-month sentence for Count 3 set aside; forfeiture order upheld under s.490.1(2); sentence appeal otherwise dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal against conviction dismissed with respect to Counts 1 and 2 and possession of cocaine
- Conviction on Count 3 set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. F., R. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-03-03 Docket numbers C40047 Judges MacPherson, James C.; Simmons, Janet M.; Cronk, Eleanore Ann Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040303 DOCKET: C40047 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. R. F. (Appellant) BEFORE: MacPHERSON, SIMMONS and CRONK JJ.A. COUNSEL: Sarah Loosemore for the appellant Leslie Paine for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: February 27, 2004 On appeal from the conviction imposed by Justice A. McFadyen dated April 2, 2003 and the sentence imposed by McFadyen J. on April 22, 2003. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] In our view, the appeal against conviction must be dismissed with respect to Counts 1 and 2 and with respect to the appellant's conviction on the charge of possession of cocaine. There was ample evidence to support the trial judge's finding of wilful blindness concerning Counts 1 and 2 and her inference that the appellant, in fact, was in possession of the cocaine. [2] In contrast, we are not persuaded that there was an adequate evidentiary foundation to support the appellant's conviction on Count 3 (re the home theatre/DVD equipment). As the Crown candidly concedes, the evidence in support of Count 3 was weak at best. It was insufficient to ground a conviction based on wilful blindness or recent possession of stolen property. [3] Accordingly, the conviction appeal is allowed in part and the appellant's conviction on Count 3 is set aside, together with the associated sentence of 12 months imprisonment. [4] We are satisfied that the forfeiture order was properly made, in the alternative, under s. 490.1(2) of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, while we grant leave to appeal sentence, the sentence appeal is dismissed.