Peter M. Kendall

The appellant appealed his conviction for living on the avails of prostitution, arguing the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the meaning of 'evidence to the contrary' to rebut the statutory presumption under s. 212(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge adequately instructed the jury to consider all evidence regarding the living and financial arrangements, and was not required to isolate specific items of evidence.

The appellant was approached by an undercover police officer in a 'buy-and-bust' operation in an area known for drug trafficking.

The officer had no reasonable suspicion that the appellant was engaged in criminal activity but persisted until the appellant agreed to sell a small amount of cannabis resin.

The trial judge found entrapment through random virtue-testing and stayed the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the officer was engaged in a bona fide inquiry directed at a specific location where drug-related crimes were reasonably suspected, and thus did not engage in random virtue-testing.

The Court also held it lacked jurisdiction to enter convictions in place of a new trial absent a cross-appeal by the Crown.