Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judges: Doherty, Cronk and Hourigan JJ.A.
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Harry Maslowski
Appellant
Counsel:
Gregory Lafontaine, for the appellant
B.G. Puddington, for the respondent
Heard: April 1, 2015
On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice B. MacDougall of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, on April 16, 2014.
Appeal Book Endorsement
1The argument on appeal focused on a single point. The appellant submits that in the absence of evidence as to where in the residence the drugs were found, the convictions were unreasonable.
2With the exception of the marijuana, there was no direct evidence as to the location of the drugs in the house. The trial judge found that the appellant was a resident in the house, that all of the drugs were found in the house, but that he could not say where in the house the various pills were found.
3The evidence referable to the marijuana was sufficient to support the inference that the appellant was in possession of the marijuana. The quantity and related paraphernalia supported the finding of possession for the purpose of trafficking.
4The appellant concedes that if the marijuana charge stands, the “proceeds” charge must stand. Consequently, the appeal on counts 1 and 3 is dismissed. There is no appeal from sentence.
5We do, however, agree that the convictions in relation to the “pills” cannot stand (counts 2, 5, 6). Absent some evidence of where in the residence the pills were discovered, it was not reasonable to infer from the appellant’s residence in the house that he was in possession of those “pills”.
6Nor, in our view, does the evidence of the other drug paraphernalia assist in drawing the inference of possession of the pills. Counts 2, 5 and 6 must be quashed and acquittals entered.