Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Martynovych, 2013 ONCA 193

Date: 20130328

Docket: C56275

Before: Simmons, Cronk and Gillese JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Lyudmyla Martynovych

Appellant

Counsel:

Sam Scratch, for the appellant

Jason M. Mitschele, for the respondent

Heard: March 25, 2013

On appeal from the judgment of Justice I. Nordheimer of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 22, 2012, dismissing an application for certiorari, to quash the committal order of Justice R. Schneider of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated September 14, 2011.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant concedes that there was evidence before the preliminary inquiry judge capable of supporting the inference that she was resident at the two apartments in question, at least intermittently, together with her co-accused.

[2] The reviewing judge concluded, in part:

There was ample evidence from which a trier of fact could draw the inference that the [appellant] was a party to drug trafficking simply from the items found in the two apartments. … Given the number of drug-related items that were found in both apartments and the fact that they were spread throughout the common rooms of the apartments, it is a possible and reasonable inference that the [appellant] had knowledge of those items.

[3] We agree. Regardless of the drug transactions allegedly carried out by the appellant’s co-accused, the circumstantial evidence of the cash, drugs and drug paraphernalia found in the two apartments, coupled with the evidence of the appellant’s residency in the apartments, constituted some evidence of knowledge and control by the appellant sufficient to meet the test for committal for trial on all charges against the appellant. We note with respect to the drugs found in the eyeglasses case in the car driven by the co-accused, that there was evidence before the preliminary inquiry judge that the car in question was registered in the appellant’s name and, further, that the appellant accompanied the co-accused in the car throughout the day in issue.

[4] The appeal from the dismissal of the appellant’s application for certiorari, to quash her committal for trial, is dismissed.