Not your pot? Could this still be a problem for drivers transporting passengers carrying cannabis?
Newfoundland court dismisses charge against woman who reports she had no knowledge of passenger carrying cannabis, but raises questions if changes to legislation needed
By Harrison Jordan
June 17, 2019
Comments
A recent court ruling out of Newfoundland and Labrador could have implications elsewhere in the country for those driving or having control of a vehicle in which cannabis is being transported, especially if not theirs and without their knowledge.
What the case says
In R. v. Cheeseman, 2019, the Provincial Court of Newfoundland & Labrador dismissed a charge under the Cannabis Control Act against a woman accused of having cannabis readily available to a person in a vehicle for which she was the designated driver. In a May 6 ruling, the court determined the driver did not know there was cannabis in the car. “Absent proof of knowledge that the cannabis was in the car, the accused could not be guilty of the alleged offence. The charge is, therefore, dismissed,” the decision reads.
A recent court ruling out of Newfoundland and Labrador could have implications elsewhere in the country for those driving or having control of a vehicle in which cannabis is being transported, especially if not theirs and without their knowledge. John Mahoney / The Gazette
The court found the accused, Alysha Cheeseman, was a designated driver for some friends who were high on cannabis. During a roadside stop, the police smelled cannabis from the car and demanded occupants hand over any cannabis. Cheeseman passed out an empty bong and one passenger produced a jar containing less than three g of cannabis from under his parka.
Cheeseman claimed she didn’t know the passengers were carrying marijuana while in her car, despite her friends being “stoned” on cannabis. Justice Harold Porter of the provincial court accepted her evidence that she did not know one passenger had cannabis and that the passengers smelled of cannabis when they were picked up.
The judge wrote that he does not believe “the intent of the legislation is to require that designated drivers must search their passengers before driving them home.” Short of searching them, he noted, Cheeseman wouldn’t have known that one of the passengers had cannabis.
Given that the act exempts “taxi drivers from liability for paying passengers carrying cannabis, it is curious that the same exemption does not apply to an unpaid ‘designated driver’,” he added.
What the law requires
The case opens the door to questions about existing rules around transporting cannabis in motor vehicles and the demands on drivers. In late May, Iain Hollett, director of prosecutions for Newfoundland and Labrador’s Department of Justice and Public Safety, told The GrowthOp the province does not intend to appeal the acquittal.
While the lower court ruling is not binding in Newfoundland and Labrador or other provinces, it may make it harder for prosecutors across Canada to obtain convictions for provincial cannabis transportation offences where the driver did not know there was cannabis in the vehicle. iStock / Getty Images Plus
In almost every Canadian province and territory, there are provincial-level offences for unlawfully transporting cannabis unless certain precautions are taken, such as keeping the cannabis in its original sealed packaging or in a place inaccessible to drivers and passengers.
One province, Manitoba, even dictates where unsealed cannabis must be stored while driving on a highway, depending on whether or not the vehicle has a trunk, or is a van or hatchback-style.
In a handful of provinces, such as B.C., Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia, cannabis transportation offences penalize the driver of the vehicle in which the substance is found—regardless of the source of the cannabis—while other provincial legislation more broadly targets anyone who “transports” cannabis unlawfully. Only Saskatchewan does not require cannabis to be inaccessible or stowed away, although the province does penalize those who open or allow to be opened a container containing cannabis.
How the courts characterize public welfare offences
As legislation proposed and passed by each province’s respective legislature, these public welfare offences don’t produce the more stigmatized criminal record. With criminal offences, the Crown must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, mens rea—or criminal intent behind it. On the other side of the offence spectrum are absolute liability offences, where an accused has no way to exculpate from fault.
The sort of public welfare offences addressed in the recent Newfoundland case have been difficult for courts to characterize and deal with. In R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, issued in 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada found that public welfare offences were presumptively strict liability offences, putting them squarely in between the two types of offences. While the prosecution need not prove intent, the accused may invoke a due diligence defence, showing that reasonable care was taken in the circumstances.
As legislation proposed and passed by each province’s respective legislature, these public welfare offences don’t produce the more stigmatized criminal record. Uriel Sinai/Getty Images
Still, in the Newfoundland and Labrador ruling, it’s curious that the judge dismissed the charges and concluded “absent proof of knowledge that the cannabis was in the car, the accused could not be guilty of the alleged offence.” That’s a relatively simple way of putting things, considering that the Crown doesn’t need to show mental elements for such strict liability offences.
Newfoundland court dismisses charge against woman who reports she had no knowledge of passenger carrying cannabis, but raises questions if changes to legislation needed
By Harrison Jordan
June 17, 2019
Comments
A recent court ruling out of Newfoundland and Labrador could have implications elsewhere in the country for those driving or having control of a vehicle in which cannabis is being transported, especially if not theirs and without their knowledge.
- Here’s everything you need to know about roadside testing for THC
- Draeger says drug testing device that produced false positives not the same as one used by police
- Full stop: Australian case, research raising doubts about accuracy of roadside drug tests
What the case says
In R. v. Cheeseman, 2019, the Provincial Court of Newfoundland & Labrador dismissed a charge under the Cannabis Control Act against a woman accused of having cannabis readily available to a person in a vehicle for which she was the designated driver. In a May 6 ruling, the court determined the driver did not know there was cannabis in the car. “Absent proof of knowledge that the cannabis was in the car, the accused could not be guilty of the alleged offence. The charge is, therefore, dismissed,” the decision reads.
A recent court ruling out of Newfoundland and Labrador could have implications elsewhere in the country for those driving or having control of a vehicle in which cannabis is being transported, especially if not theirs and without their knowledge. John Mahoney / The Gazette
The court found the accused, Alysha Cheeseman, was a designated driver for some friends who were high on cannabis. During a roadside stop, the police smelled cannabis from the car and demanded occupants hand over any cannabis. Cheeseman passed out an empty bong and one passenger produced a jar containing less than three g of cannabis from under his parka.
Cheeseman claimed she didn’t know the passengers were carrying marijuana while in her car, despite her friends being “stoned” on cannabis. Justice Harold Porter of the provincial court accepted her evidence that she did not know one passenger had cannabis and that the passengers smelled of cannabis when they were picked up.
The judge wrote that he does not believe “the intent of the legislation is to require that designated drivers must search their passengers before driving them home.” Short of searching them, he noted, Cheeseman wouldn’t have known that one of the passengers had cannabis.
Given that the act exempts “taxi drivers from liability for paying passengers carrying cannabis, it is curious that the same exemption does not apply to an unpaid ‘designated driver’,” he added.
What the law requires
The case opens the door to questions about existing rules around transporting cannabis in motor vehicles and the demands on drivers. In late May, Iain Hollett, director of prosecutions for Newfoundland and Labrador’s Department of Justice and Public Safety, told The GrowthOp the province does not intend to appeal the acquittal.
While the lower court ruling is not binding in Newfoundland and Labrador or other provinces, it may make it harder for prosecutors across Canada to obtain convictions for provincial cannabis transportation offences where the driver did not know there was cannabis in the vehicle. iStock / Getty Images Plus
In almost every Canadian province and territory, there are provincial-level offences for unlawfully transporting cannabis unless certain precautions are taken, such as keeping the cannabis in its original sealed packaging or in a place inaccessible to drivers and passengers.
One province, Manitoba, even dictates where unsealed cannabis must be stored while driving on a highway, depending on whether or not the vehicle has a trunk, or is a van or hatchback-style.
In a handful of provinces, such as B.C., Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia, cannabis transportation offences penalize the driver of the vehicle in which the substance is found—regardless of the source of the cannabis—while other provincial legislation more broadly targets anyone who “transports” cannabis unlawfully. Only Saskatchewan does not require cannabis to be inaccessible or stowed away, although the province does penalize those who open or allow to be opened a container containing cannabis.
How the courts characterize public welfare offences
As legislation proposed and passed by each province’s respective legislature, these public welfare offences don’t produce the more stigmatized criminal record. With criminal offences, the Crown must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, mens rea—or criminal intent behind it. On the other side of the offence spectrum are absolute liability offences, where an accused has no way to exculpate from fault.
The sort of public welfare offences addressed in the recent Newfoundland case have been difficult for courts to characterize and deal with. In R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, issued in 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada found that public welfare offences were presumptively strict liability offences, putting them squarely in between the two types of offences. While the prosecution need not prove intent, the accused may invoke a due diligence defence, showing that reasonable care was taken in the circumstances.
As legislation proposed and passed by each province’s respective legislature, these public welfare offences don’t produce the more stigmatized criminal record. Uriel Sinai/Getty Images
Still, in the Newfoundland and Labrador ruling, it’s curious that the judge dismissed the charges and concluded “absent proof of knowledge that the cannabis was in the car, the accused could not be guilty of the alleged offence.” That’s a relatively simple way of putting things, considering that the Crown doesn’t need to show mental elements for such strict liability offences.
