« Possession » : différence entre les versions

L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 4L.R. (1985), ch. 27 (1er suppl.), art. 3; {{LegHistory90s|1994, ch. 44}}, art. 3; {{LegHistory90s|1997, ch. 18}}, art. 2;

{{CanLIIRP|York|1jrxx|2005 BCCA 74 (CanLII)|193 CCC (3d) 331}}{{perBCCA|Oppal JA}}{{atL|1jrxx|20}} ( {{Tr}}« Personal possession is established where an accused person exercises physical control over a prohibited object with full knowledge of its character, however brief the physical contact may be, and where there is some evidence to show the accused person took custody of the object willingly with intent to deal with it in some prohibited manner")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Bonassin|208bk|2008 NLCA 40 (CanLII)|236 CCC (3d) 562}}{{perNLCA|Welsh JA}}{{atL|208bk|26}} ("  Described generally, the three components of possession have been stated to be: (1) knowledge of the item, (2) intention or consent to have possession of the item, and (3) control over the item")<br>

{{supra1|Fisher}}{{atL|1ll2q|24}} ( {{Tr}}« neither constructive possession nor joint possession requires proof of manual handling...")<br>

En vertu de l'al. 4(3)(b), la garde et la possession d'une seconde partie sont réputées lorsque {{Tr}}« avec la connaissance et le consentement des autres », la personne principale {{Tr}}« a quelque chose en sa garde ou en sa possession ».

{{supra1|Fisher}}{{atL|1ll2q|24}} ( {{Tr}}« neither constructive possession nor joint possession requires proof of manual handling...")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Smith|gb2mq|1973 CanLII 1546 (BC CA)|10 CCC (2d) 384}}{{perBCCA-H|Taggart JA}} ( {{Tr}}« possession ... is a matter to be determined on the facts of each case.")

{{CanLIIRP|Martin|g17b1|1948 CanLII 101 (ON CA)|92 CCC 257}}{{perONCA|Laidlaw JA}}{{atp|266}} (Ont. C.A.)</ref>  

{{CanLIIRP|Colvin|g9hqg|1942 CanLII 245 (BCCA)|[1943] 1 DLR 20}}{{perBCCA|O'Halloran JA}}{{atp|25}} (DLR) ( {{Tr}}« It follows that `knowledge and consent' cannot exist without the co-existence of some measure of control over the subject-matter. If there is the power to consent there is equally the power to refuse and vice versa. They each signify the existence of some power or authority which is here called control, without which the need for their exercise could not arise or be invoked")

{{CanLIIRP|Wu|2f3r5|2010 BCCA 589 (CanLII)|92 WCB (2d) 9}}{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}{{atL|2f3r5|20}} ( {{Tr}}« The law with respect to control in the context of constructive possession is well known.  What the Crown must prove is that an accused had the ability to exercise some power (i.e., some measure of control) over the item in issue.  It is not necessary for the Crown to prove that such power was in fact exercised: ") - three adults lived in a house with a grow-op on the upper floor. No evidence of active involvement in grow-op.<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Grey|6jd5|1996 CanLII 35 (ON CA)|, 28 OR (3d) 417}}{{perONCA|Laskin JA}} ( {{Tr}}« I would not prescribe a firm rule for inferring knowledge from occupancy")<br>

{{ibid1|Anderson-Wilson}}{{AtL|27sk6|68}} ( {{Tr}}« Criminal liability for voluntary occupancy in a vehicle knowing there is a weapon in the conveyance does not, unlike a possession charge, require proof of control")<br>

{{CanLIIRP|Haggarty|gcjqp|1946 CanLII 367 (BCCA)|[1947] 3 DLR 335}}{{perBCCA|Sloan CJ}} ( {{Tr}}« ...the mere finding of an article buried in the garden of a householder does not, in itself, and in the absence of some evidence indicating his knowledge of its existence, or consent to its remaining in that place, or some other surrounding circumstances from which a reasonable inference could be drawn inculpating the householder, ...")</ref>