Cyr and Millier v. The Queen, [1969] SCR 955

Supreme Court of Canada

Cyr and Millier v. The Queen, [1969] S.C.R. 955

Date: 1969-02-13

Wayde Allan Cyr and William Robert Millier Appellants;

and

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent.

1969: February 13.

Present: Cartwright C.J. and Fauteux, Judson, Ritchie and Pigeon JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Criminal law—Trafficking in narcotics—Certificate of analyst as to contents of substance—Admissibility—Narcotic Control Act, 1960-61 (Can.), c. 85, s. 9.

At the trial of the appellants on a charge of trafficking in a narcotic, the Crown tendered in evidence, under s. 9 of the Narcotic Control Act, 1960-61 (Can.), c. 35, the certificate of an analyst as to the contents of the substance in question. The certificate identified the package containing the substance, indicated the time and place and from whom the analyst had received it, and gave a description of the contents of the package with its analysis. The magistrate held that part of the certificate was inadmissible and dismissed the charge for lack of proof. The Court of Appeal held that all the statements contained in the certificate were admissible and ordered a new trial. An appeal to this Court was launched by the appellants.

Held: The appeal should be dismissed.

Droit criminel—Trafic de stupéfiants—Certificat d’un analyste sur le contenu d’une substance—Admissibilité—Loi sur les stupéfiants, 1960-61 (Can.), c. 35, art. 9.

[Page 956]

Lors du procès des appelants sur une inculpation d’avoir fait le trafic d’un stupéfiant, la Couronne a déposé en preuve, en vertu de l’art. 9 de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, 1960‑61 (Can.), c. 35, le certificat d’un analyste sur le contenu de la substance en question. Le certificat identifiait le paquet contenant la substance, indiquait le temps et l’endroit et de qui l’analyste l’avait reçu, et donnait une description de ce que le paquet contenait ainsi que le résultat de son analyse. Le magistrat a jugé qu’une partie du certificat n’était pas admissible et a rejeté l’accusation pour manque de preuve. La Cour d’appel a statué que tous les énoncés contenus dans le certificat étaient admissibles et a ordonné un nouveau procès. Les appelants ont interjeté appel à cette Cour.

Arrêt: L’appel doit être rejeté.

APPEL d’un jugement de la Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique[1], ordonnant un nouveau procès. Appel rejeté.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia¹, ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed.

John E. Hall, for the appellants.

C.D. MacKinnon, for the respondent.

At the conclusion of the argument of counsel for the appellants, the following judgment was delivered:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally for the Court):—Mr. MacKinnon, we do not find it necessary to call upon you.

We are all of opinion that the Court of Appeal have arrived at the right conclusion, that there is nothing in the certificate of the analyst which went beyond What is contemplated in s. 9 of the Narcotic Control Act, Statutes of Canada 1960-61, c. 35.

The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitor for the appellants: M.R.V. Storrow, Vancouver.

Solicitor for the respondent: D.S. Maxwell, Ottawa.