R. v. Naud, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 312

Gerald Allan Naud Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Naud

File No.: 25309.

1997: February 20.

Present: Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Criminal law -- Charge to jury -- Presumption that person living with a prostitute living off the avails of prostitution -- Charge explaining terms of the section but not the meaning of “evidence to the contrary” -- No error committed -- Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 212(3).

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 212(3).

APPEAL from a judgment of Court of Appeal for British Columbia (1996), 1996 CanLII 485 (BC CA), 74 B.C.A.C. 257, 121 W.A.C. 257, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 348, dismissing an appeal from conviction by Harvey J. Appeal dismissed.

Peter M. Kendall, for the appellant.

William F. Ehrcke, for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[1] Cory J. ‑‑ We are in substantial agreement with the reasons of the majority in the Court of Appeal (1996), 1996 CanLII 485 (BC CA), 74 B.C.A.C. 257, 121 W.A.C. 257, 106 C.C.C. (3d) 348. This case was relatively short and counsel reviewed the evidence extensively. The appellant neither testified nor called evidence.

[2] The trial judge adequately instructed the jury as to the evidence they could consider in determining whether the presumption in the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 212(3), had been rebutted. He advised them to consider all of the evidence as to how the appellant and the prostitute were living together in the apartment and the manner in which the finances were dealt with. With respect to the opinion of the minority in the Court of Appeal, it was not essential that the trial judge isolate and specify a “particular and severable” item of evidence that was capable of being evidence to the contrary.

[3] This appeal which comes to us as of right is dismissed.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitor for the appellant: Peter M. Kendall, Vancouver.

Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.