Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-09-26 Docket: C66635 Judges: Juriansz, Pepall and Roberts JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Caitlin Johannes Appellant

Counsel

Lisa Jørgensen, for the appellant

Kerry Benzakein, for the respondent

Heard and Released

Heard and released orally: September 20, 2019

Appeal Information

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Kofi N. Barnes of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 18, 2018, dismissing the certiorari application, affirming the order of Justice G. Paul Renwick of the Ontario Court of Justice, dated June 22, 2018, committing the appellant to stand trial.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant appeals the dismissal of her certiorari application to quash the order that the preliminary inquiry judge made committing her to trial on various drug related charges. She argues that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error due to the absence of any evidence and the reviewing judge erred in not so finding. She particularly notes the absence of evidence on timing.

[2] There was evidence before the preliminary inquiry judge from which a jury could infer that the appellant had knowledge and control of the contraband in the two locked rooms in the house. Amongst other things she was the sole registered owner of the house; the money counter and vacuum sealer were in plain view in one of the rooms; there was open mail addressed to the appellant and the homeowner in one of the rooms; a children's play area was adjacent to the rooms; the appellant was the regular caregiver of the children; household items were situate in one of the rooms; and the contents of intercepted communications between the appellant and her husband, the co-accused, rendered the identified inferences available to be drawn.

[3] We are not persuaded that the lack of evidence on precise timing of when the various items were placed in the rooms and when the rooms were locked renders the inferences speculative. As stated in R. v. Kamermans, 2016 ONCA 117, provided the inferences advanced by the Crown are within the field of available inferences and provide evidence of each essential element of the offence, committal follows. The reviewing judge's conclusion on wilful blindness does not detract from this outcome.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.

"R.G. Juriansz J.A."

"S.E. Pepall J.A."

"L.B. Roberts J.A."