R. v. Kernaz
- Citation
- 2019 SCC 48
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 18 October 2019
- Posture
- Criminal Law / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; on Appeal From the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 18 October 2019
- Posture
- Criminal Law / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; on Appeal From the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court upheld the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for possession for the purpose of trafficking and that the record contained sufficient evidence to support convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions for possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking upheld
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions for possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking entered
02
Material facts
Parties
Nicholas Gregory Kernaz
Appellant Counsel: Thomas HynesHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Wade McBride, Q.C.; Kevin Wilson03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Law / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; on Appeal From the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge applied the correct legal test for possession for the purpose of trafficking
- 02
Whether the Court of Appeal properly set aside the acquittal and entered a conviction on the trafficking charges
- 03
Whether the evidence supported a conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued the trial judge's acquittal on trafficking should stand and that the legal test applied at trial was appropriate; the appellant opposed substitution of a conviction by appellate intervention.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for possession for the purpose of trafficking and that the Court of Appeal properly set aside the acquittal and entered convictions because the evidence supported trafficking offences.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal; affirmed by Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kernaz
An appellate court may set aside an acquittal and enter a conviction where the trial judge applied the wrong legal test and the record supports a conviction
- 02
Criminal law principles on possession and trafficking as applied by appellate courts
Distinction between simple possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking is determined by objective indicia and surrounding circumstances consistent with trafficking
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court upheld the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for possession for the purpose of trafficking and that the record contained sufficient evidence to support convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions for possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking upheld
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions for possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking entered
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 18 October 2019
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 18 October 2019
R. v. Kernaz Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2019-10-18 Neutral citation 2019 SCC 48 Report [2019] 3 SCR 640 Case number 38642 Judges Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Kasirer, Nicholas On appeal from Saskatchewan Notes SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Kernaz, 2019 SCC 48, [2019] 3 S.C.R. 640 Appeal Heard: October 18, 2019 Judgment Rendered: October 18, 2019 Docket: 38642 Between: Nicholas Gregory Kernaz Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (para.
1) Abella J. (Moldaver, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ. concurring) R. v. Kernaz, 2019 SCC 48, [2019] 3 S.C.R. 640 Nicholas Gregory Kernaz Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Kernaz 2019 SCC 48 File No.: 38642. 2019: October 18. Present: Abella, Moldaver, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for saskatchewan Criminal law — Controlled drugs and substances — Possession of controlled substances for purpose of trafficking — Accused charged with possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for purpose of trafficking — Trial judge acquitting accused on trafficking charges but convicting accused of lesser included offence of simple possession — Court of Appeal finding trial judge applied wrong legal test as to possession for purpose of trafficking and entering conviction on trafficking charges — Conviction upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (Caldwell, Schwann and Barrington-Foote JJ.A.), 2019 SKCA 37, 377 C.C.C. (3d) 150, 439 D.L.R. (4th) 92, [2019] 7 W.W.R. 101, [2019] S.J. No. 153 (QL), 2019 CarswellSask 199 (WL Can.), setting aside the accused’s acquittal for possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and entering a conviction. Appeal dismissed. Thomas Hynes, for the appellant. Wade McBride, Q.C., and Kevin Wilson, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] Abella J. — The appeal is dismissed substantially for the reasons of the Court of Appeal. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Gerrand Rath Johnson, Regina. Solicitor for the respondent: Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Toronto.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.